DC shadows

Warning Your Voter ID Is Controversial And As Dangerous As A Concealed Weapon!

2008-08-07T14:25:00.001-07:00

Warning Your Voter ID Is Controversial And As Dangerous As A Concealed Weapon!

Missouri Voter Refuses Illegal Demand to Show Photo ID at Poll, Gets Thrown in Jail

BLOGGED BY Brad Friedman ON 8/7/2008 9:29AM

The charge on the citation: "Did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct to wit: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s) in fear of safety by refusing to show proper I.D. when voting".

This story is unfrickin'-believable. Or maybe it isn't. It took place in Thor Hearne country, after all. And though she didn't get arrested and thrown in jail, a similar incident happened to the Missouri Secretary of State during the 2006 election.

A voter in Kansas City on Tuesday --- one I happen to know, because he's an Election Integrity advocate in the Show Me State --- was arrested and sent to jail after he refused to show a driver's license at the polling place before attempting to vote during the state's Primary Election.

The voter is Phil Lindsey of ShowMeTheVote.org and he posted the details of his harrowing tale over at DemocraticUnderground.com, where he posts as "galloglas", after being released on Tuesday night.

He told me, via email late last night, that he's been in close touch with MO's Secretary of State Robin Carnahan following the incident, and that both local media and folks such as nationally syndicated radio host Thom Hartmann have been in touch with him since the story broke last night. He was surprised, but pleased, that the incident has received so much coverage already.

Never mind that requiring a voter to show a driver's license in MO before they can vote was found unconstitutional in 2006. Never mind that he showed the pollworkers a perfectly legal and proper precinct-issued voter ID card when he went to vote. Never mind that he had even called to check with the local Board of Elections before going to vote, to make sure that the ID would be acceptable. Never mind that he even brought a copy of the MO law to show the pollworkers who had demanded a driver's license (much as they had done, illegally, in a previous election he'd voted in).

The cops were called, and he ended up going to jail anyway. The charge on the citation: "Did knowingly cause a disturbance/disorderly conduct to wit: acts in a violent or tumultuous manner toward another, placing such person(s) in fear of safety by refusing to show proper I. D. when voting"...

BRAD BLOG readers may remember that Carnahan herself was told, three times, by a pollworker in 2006, that she had to show a driver's license in order to vote. Never mind that she's the Sec. of State and had some familiarity with the law in this case.

My father, as I'm originally from St. Louis, also had a similar incident, (sans the being arrested part) at the polls in 2006, which he documented for us here at the time.

Moreover, a report from the MO SoS after the 2006 election listed a number of incident reports [PDF] where voters were illegally asked for Photo ID's, and even reports of polling places illegally posting signs claiming that Photo ID was required to vote. Clearly, it wasn't an accident that so many poll workers were instructed to do exactly that. Looks like not much has changed in the two years since.

Here's how Lindsey recounts the moments after the cops arrived at the polling place, where Lindsey held his ground in refusing to proffer a different ID to the pollworkers:

One officer then turned to me and said, "This is your last chance. Leave and never come back here." I said, "You're kidding, surely. Never? And where do I vote in November?"

"Are you going?" he asked again. I asked, "You mean leave without even having an answer as to why I am not allowed to cast my ballot?"

His answer was nonverbal; but he leaned in close, and I knew he was waiting for an answer. "Uhhh... with all due respect, officer... I feel that if I did so, I would be betraying my own conscience, and setting a bad precedent for all those citizens who share my right to vote."

About two nano-seconds after finishing my sentence, an officer behind me grabbed my wrists, handcuffed me, pulled me by the arm and pushed me into the back seat of a caged police car.

Once he was finally released from jail, he went to the Eastern Jack Election Board upon the suggestion of both the Republican and Democratic Election Directors who had called his son (he had gone to vote with his father, and was similarly denied his right to vote) after he'd notified them of the incident.

Lindsey writes that Republican Director Charlene Davis was particularly hostile when she greeted him, but she and her Democratic counterpart eventually offered him another chance. Sort of...

The final attempt by the Board to mollify my son and I was to offer us the chance to actually vote (it was about 3:30PM then). I asked, "At our precinct?"

"No," I was told, "I'll give you a ballot right here to cast."

"Why can't we vote at our precinct?" I asked. "You have acknowledged that we were correct, and should have been allowed to vote. Why can't we."

"Well," she said, "if you go back out there, you may be arrested again."

"For what?"

"Well those judges filed a complaint the first time. I'm can't guarantee it won't happen again."

Thinking for a second, I suggested, "Why don't you go out with us? Or send someone."

Well, that was as far as she would go. The offer to cast a ballot at the Board Office. And I told her I would not be willing to vote a provisional ballot but she replied that it would not be provisional. I suggested she give me a moment to consult, by phone, with the SoS's Office. I was told that I would have to leave the building to do so.

I did so, checked on the status of the complaint I had already filed with the SoS by phone, then decided (since I doubt any race would be decided by my vote) that I did not want to chance setting any precedent by voting at the Board after having misdeneanor [sic] charges filed against me by the Election Judges.

Lindsey's story is remarkable and a chilling sign of what is likely to come --- in spades --- this November.

Missouri has historically been a fierce battleground. McClatchy's Greg Gordon called it "Ground Zero" for the GOP's voter fraud/suppression campaign in 2006, in no small part, because it's home to master GOP "voter fraud" scamster, Mark F. "Thor" Hearne, of the now-defunct (though they've just slithered back underground) "non-partisan" front group "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR). The BRAD BLOG first outed Hearne and his sick scheme in early 2005 and, we've been following the democracy terrorist closely every since. It remains a mystery where Hearne, the national general counsel for Bush/Cheney '04 Inc., close friend of Rove, received the $1 million dollars to start up his tax-exempt vote suppression outfit, even though they are legally required to disclose that information. ACVR operatives were also found to be at the center of the U.S. Attorney Purge scandal where Bush-appointed USA's were fired by the Bush-DoJ after refusing to prosecute phony voter fraud charges.

Lindsey noted in his email tonight, in regard to his fellow Missourian Hearne, "from his looks the last time I saw him, the years are wearing on him." Well, gosh, we're so sorry to hear that. Perhaps the guilt from helping to keep 90 year-old nuns, U.S. Army veterans and untold numbers of students and minority voters who don't even try anymore, is beginning to wear on him. But I doubt it.

Lindsey's full story, as he posted it (typos and all) at Democratic Underground Tuesday night after he finally got home, has got lots of detail, but it's well worth the read. Don't say you haven't been warned.

Ohio Sues Diebold (It's About Time!) (Open this link. There is a treasure Chest Inside)

04 OH Election Case Revived: Case Reignited, Attnys Cite Evidence of Fraud

GOP High-Tech Guru 'At Scene of Every Crime (Serial Vote Killer Still At Large)

So we learned last week that new information concerning Republican high-tech guru Mike Connell's alleged participation in computer-aided fraud from Florida to Ohio to the Swiftboaters to RNC headquarters to Congress has helped lead Ohio attorney Cliff Arnebeck to reignite a long-standing federal lawsuit concerning Ohio's 2004 Presidential Election.

We learned this week that Connell may have been threatened by Karl Rove should the GOP's "high IQ Forrest Gump" --- so described for his uncanny ability to be found "at the scene of every [GOP] crime" --- fail to "take the fall" for election fraud in Ohio, according to a letter sent by Arnebeck to AG Michael Mukasey asking for Connell's protection.

But who exactly is this exceptionally successful, yet largely-below-the-radar-until-now Republican operative?

The following clip (appx 6:45 mins) from the new documentary film, FREE FOR ALL! (downloadable in full, free for all at www.freeforall.tv) by filmmaker John Ennis, gives us a small taste of who Connell is, and how he fits into the big picture.

The High-Tech HighJack of Ohio

Rove Issues Threat, Protection Sought

Even The Kids Are Smarter Than O’Reilly

O'Reilly thinks he can teach our children proper behavior, and we can't think of a worse father figure than an angry, hate-filled shock jock notorious for telling guests to "Shut up!" We wondered what would happen if kids read O'Reilly's book and then saw the real O'Reilly for themselves. So we put together a video to illustrate O'Reilly's duplicity.

http://www.stopfascism.com Join Today!

Scaring Up Votes: Tell the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart's Partisan Political Meetings

2008-08-07T09:06:00.000-07:00

Scaring Up Votes: Tell the FEC to Investigate Wal-Mart's Partisan Political Meetings

In case you missed it, we just sent out an e-mail to our members asking them to write to the Federal Election Commission and demand an investigation into Wal-Mart's shady tactics. If you haven't heard, the Wall Street Journal broke a story on Friday about mandatory meetings Wal-Mart was having where they were telling their employees not to vote for Democrats. This is, hands down, a disgusting abuse of power, and it may just be illegal too! So take a minute or two to write to the FEC.

Below is the full message that went out to our members, if you didn't get it, you should sign up!

Wake Up WalMart's diary :: ::

Mandatory political indoctrination, Democrat-bashing, voter intimidation. Yes, it's business as usual at Wal-Mart.

This summer, Wal-Mart has organized mandatory meetings across the country, all with one purpose: to intimidate rank-and-file employees into voting Republican. The company's workers have been forced to attend ideologically-charged, Wal-Mart-sponsored rants against Democrats, Barack Obama, and landmark legislation that would allow workers to vote for or against representation.

We have received several calls from workers, their stories are very similar and similarly unsettling. As one worker put it, "they were telling me how to vote." Another Wal-Mart worker, Beth from Alabama, was told by Wal-Mart management that if she "voted for John McCain, then everything would be okay."

We believe that ideological indoctrination and political scare tactics are completely inappropriate for the workplace. Yet again, Wal-Mart’s management has crossed the line, possibly breaking the law in the process. In light of these developments, we are calling for an immediate FEC investigation into Wal-Mart's political bullying at work, but we need your help to make a real impact.

Please tell the FEC to investigate Wal-Mart’s mandatory political meetings today.

Outright political intimidation may seem too risqué for a global corporation. Not for Wal-Mart. Stories like the above are actually an emerging part of Bentonville's corporate culture.

Take 2006, when Wal-Mart organized a "voter education program" for employees. The company placed Terry Nelson at the helm: formerly George W. Bush's political director, and later fired for making racist ads about a Democratic politician. Unsurprisingly, Wal-Mart's "education" program amounted to a thin veneer over strident attacks against Democratic candidates nation wide.

Why has Wal-Mart made such an effort to control its workers' voting habits? For one, The company is terrified that Democratic gains will ensure passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. For Wal-Mart, an organized workforce could spell higher wages and better benefits—two things the company has fought tirelessly to avoid.

In the end, Wal-Mart's motives are a moot point. The company has crossed the line, again, and it's time to hold them accountable. You can help us end Wal-Mart's sleazy political schemes by taking a moment to write the FEC today.

Please write the FEC and demand an investigation into Wal-Mart's mandatory employee meetings

Thanks for joining us in support of justice in the workplace, for Wal-Mart workers everywhere,

The Team WakeUpWalMart.com

MoveOn.org: Impeachment (If Not Now, When?)

2008-08-06T15:46:00.000-07:00

MoveOn.org: Impeachment (If Not Now, When?)

Moveon.Org Has A Lot Of Questions To Answer For Its Members If Expects To Keep Its Membership And Support!

And I am one of those members who will not ante up another dollar or make a move to support or join another street action in Washington DC until they do so.

I will not, as of this day, even post an announcement or a request from MoveOn until our questions are answered.

1) What is the organization’s official position on Impeachment?

(If not now, when?) ( are you going to continue burying the issue in confusing survey forms, the dating of which has given rise to the wide spread resurfacing of this issue as they seem to be little more than lazy Performa recycling of previous documents.) I am not prepared to pay for that form of advocacy.

2) Given the fact that the House Committee on the Judiciary has already conducted one hearing on the efforts of Mr. Kucinich and his supporters nationwide; is MoveOn prepared to join the battle and make a real difference.

An unwillingness or failure to do so would say to me that MoveOn is no longer an advocacy organization of the people but a submissive collaborator and wholly owned subsidiary of the Pelosi-Reid Democratic leadership.

3) Has MoveOn bought into the “spin lines” that it’s too late to do anything now, and that there are other things more important at the moment than the restoration of Constitutional Law in this land and Executive Accountability, (like doing anything controversial might endanger the election of Democrats in November regardless of whether they are worthy of election or reelection)?

4) Is MoveOn prepared to explore or support the exploration of the Suskind allegations?

5) Is MoveOn prepared to act on the clear fact that this administration has engaged in Torture, contrary to our own laws and in total arrogance and defiance of The Geneva Conventions?

6) Has MoveOn become a co-opted organization, co-opted by the Democratic Party leadership to the point where it will sit out any issue that the leadership deems to be uncomfortable and represent that position as the will of the membership of MoveOn as determined by survey techniques designed to provide cover for the leadership of the organization while it enjoys the fruits of the members donations?

These questions need and deserve candid “no spin” responses. In Google groups and organizations across America serious questions are being raised as to the value and integrity of MoveOn. When Members raise such questions; something is very wrong; trust has been lost.

I am not pleased to have to raise these matters in such a public forum.

But when you do not answer my email inquiries and I get a telephone run around after having to do some serious searching even to initiate some calls; I have no other choice.

Denver and Minneapolis Convention Streets Update

2008-07-15T18:02:00.000-07:00

Hey R-68ers, we will try to share with you new information each e-news flash. We are also fond of reminding you of important past stated information that you should be planning for and assisting us in spreading the word. We will be sending new information almost weekly. Look for our next R-68 E-news Flash to hear about more speakers and our music line-up. Until then, enjoy and never under-estimate what a committed few can accomplish. Remember, "Do it in Denver!"

In The News | Not In My Name; Not On My Ground; It’s Over

Kris Kristofferson.

Re-Create 68, “If confronted with violence by police, we will defend ourselves.”

http://www.recreate68.com/

http://dncdisruption08.org/?p=39

http://www.ruckus.org/

Anarchists UNITE in Denver

http://www.westword.com/2007-10-25/news/anarchists-arise

http://www.westword.com/search/?keywords=Anarchists

http://illvox.org/2008/07/02/unconventional-denver-camp/

http://www.westword.com/2007-10-25/news/recreate-68-plans-to-do-just-that/full

http://www.unconventionalaction.org/strategies/strategies.html

Chicago or Denver (Hint - It's Not About Football)

http://realdemocracy2008.org/

unconventionalaction.org

http://www.codepinkalert.org/article.php?list=type&type=355

http://www.tentstate.org

http://sfpj.org/Students_for_Peace_and_Justice/Upcoming_Actions.html

http://studentsforademocraticsociety.org/home

http://denversds.org

http://www.rmpjc.org

http://ivaw.org

http://ivaw.org/chaptersandregions

http://www.indigenoussupport.net/index.php

http://www.veteransforpeace.org

http://www.internationalsocialist.org

http://socialistworker.org

http://www.myspace.com/unconventionaldenver

http://www.myspace.com/denvercopwatch

http://www.colorado911visibility.org

http://www.hackasheville.com/nornc/uaftp/downloads/paper_spreads.pdf

http://www.codepink4peace.org

http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4805&Itemid=223

http://www.unitedforpeace.org

http://www.comeuptodenver.org

http://www.jwj.org

http://www.firstunitariandenver.org/standing/socialaction.shtml

http://www.velvetrevolution.us

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/07/98597.html

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/index.html

http://www.aclu-co.org/dnc/dnc.htm

http://www.a28.org

1. Event Reminders During the DNC in August

2. Adopt and Activists

3. Last Media Training

4. Film Festival

5. Puppet Making Parties

6. Housing Needs and Help

7. R-68's Participation in the August 2^nd National Call to Action to Protect Iran

8. Benefit Rock Show

9. Legal Observer Training

10. June 22 Consulta

11. Blast From The Past

http://www.recreate68.com/direct_action.pdf

http://www.recreate68.com/shieldbook.pdf

http://www.recreate68.com/direct_action.pdf

http://www.recreate68.com/ruckusactionplanningmanual.pdf

1. Event Reminders

R-68 and other national and local groups and individuals are planning massive protest during the convention. Please make your plans to join these and other great events during the week. More importantly, affinity groups should be planning their own actions to compliment these larger events!

End the Occupations March and Rally

Sunday, August 24 - No more free pass for the Democrats. Join R68 and others as we march to end all illegal imperialist occupations in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, Puerto Rico, Haiti, Hawaii, North America, and others. The Dems have the power to put an end to the United States' illegal colonizations and wars, but they will not without pressure from the people. This is not an organizations march, but rather the People's march! Do not let differences separate us from presenting a united voice as we say in solidarity:

NO MORE! NOT IN OUR NAME! BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

Freedom March and Rally

Monday, August 25- Join supporters of Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu Jamal, The Cuban Five, and other political prisoners for the Freedom March and Rally! Leonard Peltier's parole hearing will take place in 2008. Let us not forget that the Clintons left him in jail and did not pardon him. Free Mumia, the Cuban Five, the Guantanamo detainees, and others. The march will begin at the State Capitol and end with a rally at the Federal Court House.

Hear a personal recording specific for this protest and the DNC from Mumia and Leonard

Listen to an all-star list of speakers

Call for the Freedom of Mumia and the Cuban Five

Call for an end to Human Rights abuses

Shake Your Money Maker

Monday, August 25- It's time to redistribute the wealth. Between security and corporate pay-offs, the DNC will cost over 100 million dollars for a party. We think the people deserve that money. Join us as we encircle the Denver Mint (where U.S. currency is produced) and use our collective power to raise the mint building in the air and shake the money out of it for the people. Help us shine a spotlight on the issues of poverty and class warfare. Don't forget a sack to put all of your loot in.

Bring noisemakers, energy, spells, magic, costumes, anything that gives you power. We'll need it!

Get Started Right

Saturday, August 23 - When you arrive in Denver, find your way to Lincoln Park in front of the State Capitol for the sharing of important information. We will be presenting trainings and knowledge shares on logistics of Denver and the DNC, "Know Your Rights" trainings, Legal Observer trainings, non-technical blockade trainings, self-defense trainings and more that will help you throughout the week.

2. Adopt An Activist (AAA for the Radical)

R-68 will be bringing in high-profile activists from oppressed communities whose voices are usually drowned out on the political stage. Help us make this a reality. Instead of speaking for the oppressed, we want their voices to speak for their communities. Any amount of money you can provide will aid us in this endeavor. Food and housing have already been arranged. If you like, your name, or your organizations name, can be added to the website as a supporter of this historic event, or if you wish, you can remain anonymous. Please check our website, within the week, we will be providing biographies of the activists that will benefit, as we all will, from your generosity. Thank you in advance. Please send an e-mail to gspagnuolo@recreate68.org with the name of the activist and the amount you would like to donate. You will receive additional information at that time. Listed below are some, but not all of the voices to be heard.

· Fred Hampton Jr.

· Kathleen Cleaver

· Larry Hales

· Larry Holmes

· Natsu Saito

· Glenn Morris

· The families of the Cuban Five

· Pamela Africa

· Refugees from Palestine and Iraq

· Special guest speakers to be announced soon

3. Last Media Training for Active R-68ers

Tuesday, July 15 at 5 pm - Tuesday at 5 pm, prior to the Tuesday night film festival at Hooked on Colfax at 3215 E Colfax, Denver, R-68's media committee will be holding a two hour media training. If you plan on speaking to the media prior to and during the DNC or would like a refresher on media strategies, you must attend this training. For the already media savvy activists, trainings always brings back forgotten skills, so please consider joining us.

4. Film Festival

As many of you know, R-68 has been hosting a great film festival every Tuesday night of July at Hooked on Colfax at 3215 E Colfax, Denver. The cheapest night out in Denver. Come and bring a friend. For more information on upcoming films go to: http://recreate68.com/?p=66

5. Puppet Making Parties

Members of R-68 and other collectives have been making large scale puppets and signs that will be used to create a visual statement of our resistance. Please consider spending some time helping the crew. For more information, call Tom at: 720-366-1590

6. Housing Needs

Please consider opening your house/space/backyard to activists coming into town for the DNC protests. We are trying to get this done, but we need more housing! Please, if you cannot offer your space, send this E-news Flash out to folks who may (even if they can't, then they can forward this email to others who may be able to). Call people in your cell phone and ask them; forward this call to lists, your address book, etc. Time is of the essence!

Give out our housing email, housing@recreate68.org, give it out and have folks contact us ASAP. We cannot wait any longer for your aid in this area.

Please try to commit to telling at least five people about the housing, and have them tell five others.

There are old and young folks. There are folks with special needs and no needs but a wood floor. There are folks with tents and such...and need a backyard.

You are not responsible for feeding or entertaining, just a roof (semi-roof for campers). As activists, please try and spread the word, at least!!

7. R-68's Participates in the Aug. 2^nd National Call to Action to Protect Iran

Reputable anti-war activist at a national conference put out a call for local groups to participate in a national call to action to say loud and clear, "Don't Bomb Iran". Recreate 68 and others will converge on the State capitol on August 2^nd at 11 am. Please plan on joining us and lending your voice to this national statement of peace!

8. DNC Benefit Rock Show and Party

In preparation of the DNC protests, there is going to be a benefit show at the Hi-Dive on July 23, Wednesday. 7 South Broadway, 9pm. Pleistocene, Asphodel, and Radical Knitting Circle (Boulder) will be playing.
$6.00

Please come out to support Denver's only radical film festival.
www.visualizedfilmfest.org
myspace.com/visualizedflmfest

We need support! We love our community!

9. Legal Observer Training

A legal observer training will be conducted on July 16 from 7-9 pm at the Laughing Bean Cafe 901 West 10th Avenue (10th and Santa Fe). This event will be tailored to the needs and interests of attendees, particularly those who are interested in relaying presented materials and information to their communities.

Overview and discussion of constitutional rights at stake in civic participation
How to protect those rights at this year's DNC
Function of legal observers
How to serve as a legal observer this August

Please attend so you can help disseminate this information to our communities in preparation for August 24-28.

People's Law Project
www.dnc-plp.org

10. June 22^ndConsulta

Re-create 68 will be hosting the next community information meeting in a series of meetings consisting of all groups (including those separate from R-68) that are organizing for the DNC. Please come with your information in regards to your planned events to share or come to be informed of activities.

Sunday, July 20th, 11 am
The Tivoli Center on the Auraria Campus in rooms 320 a & b
Parking will be free

11. Blast From the Past

As promised, the blast from the past is back. Young warriors are important in the community, but unless we learn from the elders who paved the road we travel, we stop acting as a whole community and begin acting like individuals concerned only with ego. The voice in this E-news Flashes "Blast From the Past" comes to us from pacifist and Chicago 8 defendant David Dellinger, a pacifist who gets solidarity and what is truly at risk.

"We live in the United States, so our struggle is here. With this "way of life" ("death" would be more appropriate) there can be no truce, nor quarter. The prejudices of patriotism, the pressures of our friends, and the fear of unpopularity, imprisonment, or death should not hold us back any longer. It must be total war against the infamous economic, political, and social system that is dominant in this country. The American system has been destroying human life in peace and in war, at home and abroad, for decades. Henceforth no decent citizen owes one scrap of allegiance (if he ever did) to American law, American custom, or American institutions."

e-news@recreate68.org

http://www.whiterosesociety.org/WRS_pamphlets_home.html

McCain McBush ...The Word Is Out

2008-07-01T10:08:00.000-07:00

Nader Financial Data

2008-02-29T07:52:00.000-08:00

His portfolio includes Cadence Design Systems Inc. (a $1.1 billion company that designs software for semiconductors), Iomega Corp. (a $1.5 billion company that makes information storage devices) and Ziff-Davis Inc. (a $702 million media firm focused on technology, once a market leader but now selling off to CNET Networks).

Nader also has a $1.2 million investment in Cisco Systems Inc., which makes products and software to power the Internet. Cisco dominates its market, perhaps even more than Microsoft's domination of the computer operating systems market. And yet Nader and the federal government have singled out Microsoft, depressing the company's stock price and throwing the U.S. stock market into a turbulent year.

"Cisco controls a bit more than half the overall data-networking market but has, for example, 89 percent of the market for high-end routers," reported Salon magazine. "…Cisco's Washington lobbying has been concentrated on objectives like making it harder for disgruntled shareholders to sue their companies – something Nader and his various groups have vociferously opposed. It has also focused on passing legislation to issue more H1-B visas to foreign workers, while Nader has taken a strong stand against the visas."

When some of these facts about Cisco were brought to Nader's attention, he and his associates acted surprised. "Nader's raiders," who take pride in their comprehensive investigations of big business, seem not to have done their homework on Cisco.

But Nader's reaction to Cisco's extensive operations in China was more nonchalant, despite the apparent contradiction between Nader's investment and his opposition to the China trade bill that paved the way for the country's membership in the World Trade Organization. When the bill passed in Congress, Nader associate Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, said lawmakers had "sold out to corporate interests to help them rake in even bigger profits."

Cisco is one of the leading beneficiaries of the China trade bill. The company's operations in China include technology laboratories, manufacturing alliances and joint research and development programs. Cisco CEO John Chambers has bragged that the company's 15 Chinese manufacturing partners will provide $650 million worth of parts to Cisco this year, and sales in China will reach about $500 million.

Nevertheless, Nader defended his investment to CNN's Judy Woodruff: "I don't mind trade with China in non-weapons and non-toxic materials," he said. Nader contrasted Cisco to "multinational U.S. corporations who are taking factories and setting factories over there."

Nader's financial disclosure report gives little detail about where his donations go.

But it suggests that he gives primarily to organizations he founded or controls, or which promote his ideological interests. Nader's philanthropy is hardly selfless. Indeed, it supports his own left-wing activism.

In the report, Nader lists several favorite causes, such as aviation safety. He reports that he gave an undisclosed amount to several Public Interest Research Groups. And he subsequently told the Washington Post that he donated $200,000 for "civic action projects" at his alma maters, Princeton and Harvard.

The report mentions donations in the 1970s to what Nader calls the "Congress Project"; the Washington Post says the Project received $500,000. The group no longer exists under that name. Today, "Congress Watch" is a division of Public Citizen, a group Nader founded in 1971.

In the report, Nader identifies himself as a member of the board of directors of the Appleseed Foundation and the Center for the Study of Responsive Law. The Appleseed Foundation is one of the latest Naderite groups, having been created in 1993. The network of "lawyers for justice" has formed 17 public interest law centers in 15 states with an "average annual budget" of $750,000. It claims to have "helped millions of people and affected billions of dollars," although it doesn't provide legal services to individuals.

The Center for the Study of Responsive Law, founded in 1968, was once described by Forbes magazine as "Nader's headquarters" and is at the center of the complex network of Nader-linked organizations. It promotes greater government interference in the American marketplace.

Although Nader discloses ties to only two groups, his reach is much longer. The New York Post estimated in 1996 that Nader controlled, to varying degrees, 29 organizations with combined annual revenues of $80 million. A 1982 book by Dan Burt, Abuse of Trust: A Report on Ralph Nader's Network, uncovered a network of 50 small corporations and organizations linked to Nader. Burt concluded, "Mr. Nader and his groups cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, they agitate for more and more corporate and governmental disclosure to the public. On the other, they do not feel a duty themselves to make such public disclosures."

Despite the unanswered questions, it may well be that Nader has been helping to fund all of these groups to the tune of "millions of dollars." But if we are going to believe Nader's claim that he has been a generous philanthropist over the last several decades, we have to take the word of a man who was secretly investing in the capitalist system and making millions of dollars while publicly attacking it.

http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm#hypocrite

If LaDuke is looking for Occidental stockholders to criticize, she might want to look a little closer to home. In the financial disclosure form Nader filed on June 14, the Green Party presidential candidate revealed that he owns between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of shares in the Fidelity Magellan Fund. The fund controls 4,321,400 shares of Occidental Petroleum stock.

The Rainforest Action Network -- whose members no doubt include myriad Nader Raiders -- has slammed Fidelity for "investing in genocide," and called for the fund to divest its Occidental holdings.

But even if Fidelity were to divest its holdings in Occidental, it holds shares in so many companies Nader has crusaded against, it's hard to escape the conclusion that Nader's participation in the fund is supremely hypocritical. The fund, for example, owns stock in the Halliburton Company, where George W. Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, recently worked as president and COO. The fund has investments in supremely un-p.c. clothiers the Gap and the Limited, both of which have been the target of rocks by World Trade Organization protesters, as well as Wal-Mart, the slayer of mom-and-pop stores from coast to coast.

http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/07/13/laduke

But winning's not the point here. For a national candidate, LaDuke seems strangely ambivalent about the results. She’s not having any of that "spoiler" stuff, the accusation hurled by many Democrats - and most prominently, the New York Times editorial page -- that all she and Nader can do is ruin Al Gore, a man whom she finds inadequate, though preferable to George W. Bush. But Gore hasn't earned those votes, she'll say, and if he loses, that's too bad. Besides, to many Americans, it doesn't matter who is in Washington, anyway.

Ralph Nader and Cisco Systems

Cisco Systems Watered Stock Scheme Captures Ralph Nader, Watered Stock Defined .... to extend an offer to provide investment advisory services to Mr. Nader ...

On page 15 of Schedule A, Nader was forced to disclose his shares of Cisco Systems, valued at the time at $1,158,750; Fibercore Inc., between $15,000 and $50,000; Iomega Inc., $15,000-$50,000; 3 Com Corp., $50,000-$100,000; and Ziff-Davis Inc., $50,000-$100,000, among other corporate holdings.

Those were just his direct investments.

Nader held an additional $2 million-plus in Fidelity and other mutual funds.

You'd think that someone who so loosely throws around epithets like "corporate criminals" and "corporate crooks" would never trust corporate brass with so much of his own money.

http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00397216

Nader Financial Disclosure 2003 President
An annual disclosure report detailing earned and investment income, assets, financial transactions, liabilities, outside reimbursements, gifts and honoraria, positions held outside government, and agreements, arrangements and contracts.

Nader Financial Disclosure 2000 President
An annual disclosure report detailing earned and investment income, assets, financial transactions, liabilities, outside reimbursements, gifts and honoraria, positions held outside government, and agreements, arrangements and contracts.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=13&act=details#asset

Fidelity Spartan Money Market Fund	2004	$15,001	$50,000
National School Boards Assn. San Fransisco, CA	2004	$20,000	$20,000
Defined Benefit Pension Plan -- American Fedof Television and Recording Artists	2004	$16,218	$16,218
Window & Door Mfg Assn. Napa California	2004	$15,750	$15,750
Retention Trust -- note Teminated on 7/03 WashDC	2004	$5,001	$15,000
Amalgamated Bank of NY Sav. & check axxts WaDC	2004	$5,001	$15,000
Seven Stories Press New York, New York	2004	$14,642	$14,642
American Academy of Achievement Wash. DC	2004	$13,500	$13,500
Assn of College Unions INTL, Chicago Ill	2004	$12,425	$12,425
RX Insight Inc. Boston, MA	2004	$12,000	$12,000
North Mich. Univ. Marquette College Fulton, MO	2004	$12,000	$12,000
St Louis Public Lib. St Louis, Missouri	2004	$12,000	$12,000
Franklin Marchall Coollege Lancaster PA	2004	$12,000	$12,000
Indiana Univ. of Penn Indiana, PA	2004	$12,000	$12,000
Nova Scotia Barristers Society, Halifax, NS	2004	$12,000	$12,000
Univ. of Texas Permain Basin, Odessa Texas	2004	$12,000	$12,000
Univ of South Carolina, Columbia, SC	2004	$11,621	$11,621
Foundation of Excellence in Schools, Lake George, NY	2004	$11,250	$11,250
Texas A & M Kingsville, Texas	2004	$11,050	$11,050
Earlham College Richmond Indiana	2004	$10,626	$10,626
Miami University Oxford, Ohio	2004	$10,625	$10,625
Queens Univ of Charlotte Chalotte, NC	2004	$10,625	$10,625
Northwestern State Univ. Natchitoches, LA	2004	$10,200	$10,200
Westminster College Fulton, MO	2004	$10,200	$10,200
Univ. of Ottawa Ottawa, Canada	2004	$9,500	$9,500
University of Rochester Rochester, New York	2004	$9,350	$9,350
University of Minnesota Rochester, Minnesota	2004	$9,000	$9,000
Univ of Notre Dame Notre Dame IN	2004	$9,000	$9,000
California Nurses Assn. Oakland, California	2004	$9,000	$9,000
Omega Institute Rhinebeck, NY	2004	$9,000	$9,000
Ameican Library Assn, Canada	2004	$9,000	$9,000
University of Deleware Newark, DE	2004	$8,685	$8,685
Canisius College Buffalo, New York	2004	$8,500	$8,500
Bismark State College Bismark, ND	2004	$8,500	$8,500
Hamilton College Clinton, New York	2004	$8,500	$8,500
Washington St. Univ. Pullman, Washington	2004	$8,075	$8,075
Boise State University Boise, ID	2004	$7,863	$7,863
Jamestown College Jamestown, Maryland	2004	$7,650	$7,650
Idaho State Unive. Pacatello, ID	2004	$7,650	$7,650
Texas Library Assn. San Antonio, Texas	2004	$7,520	$7,520
Clemson University Clemson SC	2004	$7,200	$7,200
Hollins University Roanoke, Virginia	2004	$6,800	$6,800
Corporate Knights Ins. Toronto, Canada	2004	$6,750	$6,750
Mental Health Assn. of Lucas County, Toledo OH	2004	$6,400	$6,400
Denison University Granville, Ohio	2004	$6,375	$6,375
Univ . Mass-Dartmouth, N Dartmouth MA	2004	$6,375	$6,375
American University Law School, Wash. DC	2004	$6,000	$6,000
CUNY Graduate School/ Univ. Center NY, NY	2004	$5,400	$5,400
Streamline Publicshing Inc. NY, NY	2004	$4,500	$4,500
Univ. of Central Florida Orlando, Florida	2004	$3,816	$3,816
Riggs Bank checking acct Washington, DC	2004	$1,001	$2,500
Federated Money Market	2004	$1,001	$2,500
American Medical Student Assn. Phil, PA	2004	$1,800	$1,800
Alan Freed Ass. Washington, DC	2004	$1,750	$1,750
RX Insight Inc. Boston, MA	2004	$1,500	$1,500
Georgia Environmental Org. Inc. Atlanta, GA	2004	$1,350	$1,350
Weekly Newspaper Column	2004	$1,189	$1,189
Fidelity OTC Fund	2004	$201	$1,000
Fidelity Magellan Fund	2004	$201	$1,000
NASDAQ 100 Trust SRI	2004	$201	$1,000
Amercan Humanist Assn. Washington, DC	2004	$1,000	$1,000
Amer Council of Consumer Interests Wash, DC	2004	$1,000	$1,000
Turner Broadcasting Sys. Atlanta, Georgia	2004	$1,000	$1,000
Milton Eisenhower Fdn Washington, DC	2004	$1,000	$1,000
South Shore Bank CD Chicado Illinois	2004	$201	$1,000
E. P. Entertainment Inc. Burbank, California	2004	$902	$902
Tribune- LA Times Los Angeles, CA	2004	$500	$500
M&T Bank -- savings acct. Washington, DC	2004	$0	$201
Black Rock of NA Govt. Income Fund	2004	$0	$201
CNET/Common	2004	$0	$201
Cadence Design/Common	2004	$0	$201
Ciena/common	2004	$0	$201
Cisco/Common	2004	$0	$201
OpenTV Corp./Common	2004	$0	$201
Alliance Money Market	2004	$0	$201
Oracle/Common	2004	$0	$201
Washington Post Washington, DC	2004	$200	$200
The Nation Magazine New York NY	2004	$150	$150
The New Press New York, New York	2004	$100	$100
American Library Assn. Chicago Ill	2004	$100	$100
	2004

Asset Name	Year Filed	Min	Max
NASDAQ 100 Trust SRI	2004	$1,746,500	$1,746,500
Fidelity Spartan Money Market Fund	2004	$1,444,824	$1,444,824
Cisco/Common	2004	$250,001	$500,000
Federated Money Market	2004	$275,663	$275,663
Amalgamated Bank of NY Sav. & check axxts WaDC	2004	$100,001	$250,000
Riggs Bank checking acct Washington, DC	2004	$100,001	$250,000
Fidelity Magellan Fund	2004	$50,001	$100,000
Cadence Design/Common	2004	$50,001	$100,000
South Shore Bank CD Chicado Illinois	2004	$15,001	$50,000
Fidelity OTC Fund	2004	$15,001	$50,000
Alliance Money Market	2004	$15,001	$50,000
Oracle/Common	2004	$15,001	$50,000
M&T Bank -- savings acct. Washington, DC	2004	$1,000	$15,000
CNET/Common	2004	$1,000	$15,000
OpenTV Corp./Common	2004	$1,000	$15,000
Weekly Newspaper Column	2004	$1,189	$1,189
Retention Trust -- note Teminated on 7/03 WashDC	2004	$0	$1,000
Black Rock of NA Govt. Income Fund	2004	$0	$1,000
Ciena/common	2004	$0	$1,000
Defined Benefit Pension Plan -- American Fedof Television and Recording Artists	2004

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=13&act=cp

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=13&act=pfin

Based on previous disclosure forms, his stock portfolio (thru the Fidelity Magellan Fund) includes: Halliburton, Occidental Petroleum, the Limited, the Gap, Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, Shell Oil Company, Sunoco, Texaco, Chevron Corporation, Raytheon (a major missile manufacturer), other various defense contractors, and Bristol-Myers Squibb. <61> <62> <63>

Even though almost ANY Democrat would be better for the country than almost any Republican, Nader only crawls out of the woodwork to attack Democrats. In spite of making money writing books on populist topics, his assets are invested in some of the worst right-wing corporations. Where he puts his money speaks more of the man than what comes out of his mouth.

DOWN IN THE DAVIS DIRT

2007-09-13T10:50:00.000-07:00

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH RESEARCHING TOM DAVIS AND FINANCIAL AND INFLUENCE PEDDLING CORRUPTION, IS THAT THERE IS SO MUCH OF IT; THAT WHEN YOU GET STARTED; IT’S LIKE EATING POTATO CHIPS. YOU JUST CAN’T STOP AT ONE!

“DAVIS DIRT DOESN’T DO THIS JUSTICE.” THIS GUY IS REAL SEWER SLUDGE SUCKING GUTTER RAT. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT ANYONE BELIEVES THAT THIS MAN IS WORTH EVEN TRYING TO TALK TO, OR LISTEN TO.

WITH SOME MEN YOU CAN GET TO THEM WITH A GOOD MEAL, OR PULLING THEIR ZIPPER DOWN, BUT WITH THIS GUY YOU HAD BETTER HAVE A COUPLE OF GRAND LAYING AROUND YOU’RE WILLING TO PART WITH!

HE IS THE EPITOME OF WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE CONGRESS.

http://www.raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4270

Tom Davis has ties to Abramoff's K Street Project though super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon

by: Andrea Chamblee
Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 22:49:09 PM EDT

Tom Davis (VA-11) is another Republican with an Abramoff connection in his closet. Worries about those connections may be behind the recent announcement that the House Government Reform Committee is investigating connections between Jack Abramoff and the White House. Now that's putting some distance between your campaign and GW Bush! Of course Davis has his strongest challenger in years, Democrat Andy Hurst and a District that is turning blue. Help Andy get the red out

In the "Abramoff 53," dengre summarized extensive research on Jack Abramoff connections but asked for help on the "Bench of Nine" that includes Tom Davis (R-11). He is running for reelection against Democrat Andy Hurst. If he wins reelection, Davis has ambitions for the Senate and then the White House.

Davis has ties to Abramoff that inspired Andy Hurst to give Davis his first real challenge in 12 years. There's lots of reasons to vote for Andy Hurst over Davis, not just that Davis's corruption

But those are good reasons.

Public Citizen and CapitalEye have found ties from Tom Davis and Abramoff, especially through super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon, but Davis has somehow escaped scrutiny and has never been held accountable. Virginia can unseat Davis. Contribute to and volunteer for Andy Hurst. Davis has used the millions he has from fundraising to influence races in 40 States, including 42 Districts and 3 senate races, totaling 103 candidates. That doesn't count his NRCC fundraising, His money is in so many states, get their help Kicking Him Out!

Andrea Chamblee :: Tom Davis has ties to Abramoff's K Street Project though super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon Similar story posted here: here on Daily Kos. Tom Davisâ™s PAC money infects almost every state, so please go over to DailyKos and recommend the diary for more to see.

This diary ties Tom Davis to Abramoff and other corrupt super-lobbyists in 3 ways: through personal donations to Davis, his wife, and his PACs, through donations he solicited through the NRCC, and through donations and actions of Dan Mattoon of the NRCC and the firm of Podesta Mattoon. Also we can't forget Davis's unique position as head of the Government Reform Committee which tied the Committee's hands to prevent investigation of the corruption.

As most of you know, Davis was elected to Congress in 1994 (on the Contract with America) and has risen to lead the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the US Government Reform Committee.

Background and SummaryDuring his tenure, Davis has obtained donations from Abramoff and "Team Abramoff." Even though that's thousands of dollars, it's nothing compared to the amounts donated by the clients, on their lobbyists advice and insistence, including donations to Davis. Even more striking than those thousands of dollars is the amount from all the sources that Davis obtained from Abramoff, other lobbyists, and their clients and client PACs for Davis and for the NRCC when Davis was its head from 1998 to 2002.

This fund raising earned Davis the fear and power he wields today over Republicans that don't vote the party line.

When reporting some of Abramoff's contributions, Davis actually stated that he could not include Abramoff's occupation because it was "unknown" to him and he had used his "best efforts" to find out.

Ironically, as a "reward" for raising so much money for the NRCC, Davis was handed the Chairmanship of the Government Reform Committee by the Republican Majority, over Chris Shays who wanted the job and had more seniority. In his new position on the Reform Committee, Davis would have not only had the responsibility to know what Abramoff and DeLay were up to but Davis would be in a position to decline to exercise oversight to stop the illegal fundraising.

The Democrats have tried to get various hearings on the lobbying abuses and other oversight failures by Davis and his Government Reform Committee.

Since Davis controls the agenda of the Committee, they are powerless to even get the subject on the agenda.

Here are the dollar details:

I.. Personal Donations to Davis

Davis himself received $4,500 from Abramoff.
Donor - Total - Cycle

Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela- $500 - 2000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians- $1,000- 2002
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana- $1,000- 2002
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe- $1,000 - 2002
Tigua Indian Reservation- $1,000- 2002

I suppose he probably gave the money back after he got caught, but knowing all he knew, why did he take it in the first place?

II.. NRCC Donations under Davis's Leadership

More importantly, Davis was head of the NRCC from 1998 to 2002, when Abramoff was reaching his peak. Davis was in a position to know who Abramoff was and how extensive Abramoff's reach was across the Republican Party.

As the money-go-round went faster, Davis would participate enthusiastically, raising $312,000 from Abramoff's tribal clients for the NRCC during that time.

Donor- Total - Cycle

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2002) $78,500
Scanlon, Michael P (2002) $50,000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (2002) $35,000
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (2002) $35,000
Tigua Indian Reservation (2002) $30,000
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (2002) $25,000
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2002) $25,000
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (2002) $11,000
Tigua Indian Reservation (2002) $2,000
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (2002) $1,000
SunCruz Casinos (2000) $10,000
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2000) $7,500
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (2000) $2,000

Davis left the NRCC, but not until after the stage was set for another $138,500, for a total of $450,500 to the NRCC from Abramoff, according to CapitalEye.org.

Donor - Total - Cycle

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (2004) $50,000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (2004) $40,500
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2004) $33,000
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (2004) $10,000
Pueblo of Sandia (2004) $5,000

This total doesn't count the additional thousands of dollars added to the NRCC coffers from "Team Abramoff" lobbyists and ARMPAC, Greenburg Traurig PAC, Preston Gates PAC, Bob Ney's American Liberty PAC, Denny Hastert's Keep Our Majority PAC, and the other PACS funded in part by Abramoff and his Team.

III.. Actions and Donations from Dan Mattoon

Tom Davis, Jack Abramoff, and NRCC deputy, lobbyist and major donor Dan Mattoon
According to Public Citizen's Bankroller's Report, only a few lobbyists donate any amounts that require reporting ($200 or more). Nevertheless, Davis has a hand in hundreds of PACS and financial schemes, and he gets a big share of this one:

Lobbyists and the political action committees of their firms have contributed at least $103.1 million to members of Congress since 1998. This figure is more than 90 percent higher than what is reported by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has been the most authoritative source to date, because this study's methodology cast a wider net to capture lobbyists' contributions.

The percentage of lobbyists making personal contributions is small. Just 27.1 percent (7,350) of the 27,121 people who registered as lobbyists since 1998 have contributed at least $200 to a single congressional candidate or PAC. Only contributions of $200 or more are reported by the FEC.

Lobbyists who have contributed at least $10,000 to members of Congress comprise only 6.1 percent of all lobbyists and only 22.3 percent of the lobbyists who have made at least one contribution of $200 or more. Nevertheless, they have accounted for more than fourth-fifths (83.4 percent) of all the money contributed to members of Congress by lobbyists since 1998.

The top 8 (now 7)

According to the Public Citizen report, the 36 "members of Congress who took in at least $500,000 from lobbyists and their PACs account for only 5.1 percent of the members of Congress who have received contributions of $200 or more from lobbyists since 1998. Yet, the money they took in - $26.5 million - accounts for more one-fourth of the total in contributions received by members of Congress in the time period studied."

Only 18 received $500,000 or more: 12 Republicans including Tom Davis.

Members of the House Who Received at Least $500,000 from Lobbyists

House Member- Current Leadership Position- Individual Contributions - PAC Contributions- Total

1. Tom DeLay (R-TX)- $944,013- $378,893- $1,322,906
2. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), House Speaker-$643,384- $283,070- $926,454
3. John Murtha (D -Pa.) - $715,550- $153,550- $869,100
4. Jerry Lewis (R -Calif.), Chair, Appropriations Comm- $724,033 - $95,721- $819,754
5. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Minority Whip- $637,936- $142,944 - $780,880
6. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Majority Leader - $618,933 - $115,935 - $734,868
7. Michael Oxley (R-Ohio), Chair, Financial Services Comm- $546,088- $165,406- $711,494
8. Tom Davis (R-Va.), Chair, Government Reform Comm- $560,262 - $112,476- $672,738

Davis's biggest lobbyist contributor is Dan Mattoon, a lobbyist who worked with DeLay and Abramoff on the K Street Project and a principal in the 18-year-old firm of Podesta Mattoon, which describes itself as a "bipartisan government relations and public affairs" firm.

Mattoon's online biography says he has worked with Republican representatives for over 30 years. He is a close friend of House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert (R-Ill.) At Hastert's request, Mattoon left BellSouth, where he had been vice president of congressional affairs for 15 years, to help [Davis] run the [NRCC] and help the GOP retain control of the House in 2000.

Mattoon's biography says, "for more than 30 years, he has provided political and strategic legislative counsel to House Republican members, and is a trusted advisor to many of the Washington political elite, including Speaker Hastert, House Majority Whip Blunt, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Pryce, and NRCC Chairman Reynolds."

Each of the four is among the top 10 congressional recipients of campaign contributions from Mattoon.

Mattoon also hired Joshua Hastert, the speaker's son, as a lobbyist.

Mattoon's wife, Jane, once served as treasurer of Hastert's leadership Political Action Committee.

Mattoon was involved in a Republican effort to wring more money out of lobbyists for Republican candidates. He was one of a small group of lobbyists who met with then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) at a dinner hosted by now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant in January 2004 to discuss the issue. "There has been a concern that not enough folks who are out there making money based on their relation to the Hill are giving enough of their own money to the Republican Party," a GOP aide said of the initiative to gin up more lobbyist contributions to Republican lawmakers.

While the deputy director of the [NRCC] in 1999, [the same time Davis was NRCC head], Mattoon seems to have been involved in a decision to transfer $500,000 from the NRCC to the U.S. Family Network, a 501(c)(4) group that operated in the same Capitol Hill townhouse as the political action committees of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

Mattoon said the transfer was made because of the ties former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham had to the group, and with the expectation that the money would be used to aid Republicans in the 2000 elections. "The Family Network is a group that based on our view of Ed Buckham's strengths in the family community and his political strengths will have an equally important impact in the elections, favorably for Republicans," Mattoon said.

In 2004, the FEC fined the NRCC $280,000 for its transfer of the $500,000 and the subsequent use of the money to finance ads attacking vulnerable Democrats.

After DeLay announced plans to resign from Congress, Mattoon continued to praise him, calling him "one of the founding fathers of the Republican majority in the House," and saying that, "Tom has a strong legacy that he should be proud of."

PodestaMattoon's top-paying client since 1998 has been The Science Coalition, which represents 60 universities. The Coalition has paid $2.6 million for the firm's services since 2001.

The Coalition periodically honors members of Congress, typically those serving on appropriations committees, such as Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, upon whom the Coalition bestowed its "Champion of Science" award in 2004.

Cunningham has subsequently pleaded guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from contractors and is serving an eight-year prison sentence.

The University of California system, a member of the Coalition, received more than $3.7 million in earmarks in 2005.

Mattoon didn't stop there. When working for Davis at the NRCC, Mattoon donated to Davis's wife and one of Davis's PACs, as well as the State Republican Party.

Devolites Davis, Jeannemarie (2004) $500

Republican Party of Virginia (1999) $200

Tom Davis Va Victory Fund (2001) $5,000

Here is a comparison of the lobbyist money Davis has raked in compared with other Virginia representatives.

Virginia Member of - Rank in - Total Contributions Congress - in House- (including Tom DeLay) Received

Tom Davis (R) 8 $672,769
Jim Moran (D) has infected Government Reform and races all over the country. 11 $644,310
Eric Cantor (R) 22 $448,997
Frank Wolf (R) 27 $362,947
Rick Boucher (D) 49 $255,973
Bob Goodlatte (R) 99 $143,900
Virgil H Goode Jr (R) 249 $57,718
Randy Forbes (R) 255 $55,518
Jo Ann Davis (R) 257 $55,014
Bobby Scott (R) 291 $46,044
Thelma Drake (R) 399 $14,050

(One of the best research diaries on a blog that I've seen in a long time. Great work by Andrea! - promoted by Lowell)In the "Abramoff 53," dengre summarized extensive research on Jack Abramoff connections but asked for help on the "Bench of Nine" that includes Tom Davis (R-11). He is running for reelection against Democrat Andy Hurst.

If he wins reelection, Davis has ambitions for the Senate and then the White House.

Davis has ties to Abramoff that inspired Andy Hurst to give Davis his first real challenge in 12 years. There's lots of reasons to vote for Andy Hurst over Davis, not just that Davis's corruption
But those are good reasons.

Public Citizen and CapitalEye have found ties from Tom Davis and Abramoff, especially through super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon, but Davis has somehow escaped scrutiny and has never been held accountable.

Virginia can unseat Davis. Contribute to and volunteer for Andy Hurst. Davis has used the millions he has from fundraising to influence races in 40 States, including 42 Districts and 3 senate races, totaling 103 candidates. That doesn't count his NRCC fundraising, His money is in so many states, get their help Kicking Him Out!

Andrea Chamblee :: Tom Davis has ties to Abramoff's K Street Project though super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon

Similar story posted here: here on Daily Kos. Tom Davis's PAC money infects almost every state, so please go over to DailyKos and recommend the diary for more to see.

This diary ties Tom Davis to Abramoff and other corrupt super-lobbyists in 3 ways: through personal donations to Davis, his wife, and his PACs, through donations he solicited through the NRCC, and through donations and actions of Dan Mattoon of the NRCC and the firm of Podesta Mattoon.

Also we can't forget Davis's unique position as head of the Government Reform Committee which tied the Committee's hands to prevent investigation of the corruption.

As most of you know, Davis was elected to Congress in 1994 (on the Contract with America) and has risen to lead the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the US Government Reform Committee.

Background and SummaryDuring his tenure, Davis has obtained donations from Abramoff and "Team Abramoff."

Even though that's thousands of dollars, it's nothing compared to the amounts donated by the clients, on their lobbyists advice and insistence, including donations to Davis.

Even more striking than those thousands of dollars is the amount from all the sources that Davis obtained from Abramoff, other lobbyists, and their clients and client PACs for Davis and for the NRCC when Davis was its head from 1998 to 2002. This fundraising earned Davis the fear and power he wields today over Republicans that don't vote the party line.

When reporting some of Abramoff's contributions, Davis actually stated that he could not include Abramoff's occupation because it was "unknown" to him and he had used his "best efforts" to find out.

Ironically, as a "reward" for raising so much money for the NRCC, Davis was handed the Chairmanship of the Government Reform Committee by the Republican Majority, over Chris Shays who wanted the job and had more seniority. In his new position on the Reform Committee, Davis would have not only had the responsibility to know what Abramoff and DeLay were up to. Davis would be in a position to decline to exercise oversight to stop the illegal fund raising.

The Democrats have tried to get various hearings on the lobbying abuses and other oversight failures by Davis and his Government Reform Committee. Since Davis controls the agenda of the Committee, they are powerless to even get the subject on the agenda.

Here are the dollar details:

I.. Personal Donations to Davis

Davis himself received $4,500 from Abramoff.

Donor - Total - Cycle

Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela - $500- 2000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians - $1,000 - 2002
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana- $1,000- 2002
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe- $1,000- 2002
Tigua Indian Reservation- $1,000- 2002

I suppose he probably gave the money back after he got caught, but knowing all he knew, why did he take it in the first place?

II.. NRCC Donations under Davis's Leadership

More importantly, Davis was head of the NRCC from 1998 to 2002, when Abramoff was reaching his peak.

Davis was in a position to know who Abramoff was and how extensive Abramoff's reach was across the Republican Party.

As the money-go-round went faster, Davis would participate enthusiastically, raising $312,000 from Abramoff's tribal clients for the NRCC during that time.

Donor - Total- Cycle

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2002) $78,500
Scanlon, Michael P (2002) $50,000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (2002) $35,000
Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (2002) $35,000
Tigua Indian Reservation (2002) $30,000
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (2002) $25,000
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2002) $25,000
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (2002) $11,000
Tigua Indian Reservation (2002) $2,000
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (2002) $1,000
SunCruz Casinos (2000) $10,000
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2000) $7,500
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (2000) $2,000

Davis left the NRCC, but not until after the stage was set for another $138,500, for a total of $450,500 to the NRCC from Abramoff, according to CapitalEye.org.

Donor- Total- Cycle

Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe (2004) $50,000
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (2004) $40,500
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (2004) $33,000
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (2004) $10,000
Pueblo of Sandia (2004) $5,000

This total doesn't count the additional thousands of dollars added to the NRCC coffers from "Team Abramoff" lobbyists and ARMPAC, Greenburg Traurig PAC, Preston Gates PAC, Bob Ney's American Liberty PAC, Denny Hastert's Keep Our Majority PAC, and the other PACS funded in part by Abramoff and his Team.

III.. Actions and Donations from Dan Mattoon

Tom Davis, Jack Abramoff, and NRCC deputy, lobbyist and major donor Dan Mattoon
According to Public Citizen's Bankroller's Report, only a few lobbyists donate any amounts that require reporting ($200 or more). Nevertheless, Davis has a hand in hundreds of PACS and financial schemes, and he gets a big share of this one:

Lobbyists and the political action committees of their firms have contributed at least $103.1 million to members of Congress since 1998. This figure is more than 90 percent higher than what is reported by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has been the most authoritative source to date, because this study's methodology cast a wider net to capture lobbyists' contributions.

The percentage of lobbyists making personal contributions is small. Just 27.1 percent (7,350) of the 27,121 people who registered as lobbyists since 1998 have contributed at least $200 to a single congressional candidate or PAC. Only contributions of $200 or more are reported by the FEC.

Lobbyists who have contributed at least $10,000 to members of Congress comprise only 6.1 percent of all lobbyists and only 22.3 percent of the lobbyists who have made at least one contribution of $200 or more. Nevertheless, they have accounted for more than fourth-fifths (83.4 percent) of all the money contributed to members of Congress by lobbyists since 1998.

The Washington Post startied to take notice of the seriousness of this race.

The DailyKos version of this diary made the front page under the Diary Rescue by Susan G.
Chamblee's Tom Davis ties to Abramoff's and K Street Project though Mattoon provides excellent in-depth research on the ties of incumbent Republican Tom Davis in VA-11 to Abramoff money.

In the Abramoff 53, Dengre researched Abramoff connections but asked for help on the "Bench of Nine" that includes Tom Davis (R-11). He is running for reelection against Democrat Andy Hurst. If he wins reelection, Davis has ambitions for the Senate and then the White House.
Davis has ties to Abramoff that inspired Andy Hurst to give Davis his first real challenge in 12 years. There's lots of reasons to vote for Andy Hurst over Davis, not just that Davis's corruption

Public Citizen and CapitalEye have found ties from Tom Davis and Abramoff, especially through super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon, but Davis has somehow escaped scrutiny and has never been held accountable.

The DailyKos community can unseat Davis. Contribute to and volunteer for Andy Hurst. Davis has used the millions he has from fundraising to influence races in 40 States, 42 Districts, 3 senate races, totaling 103 candidates, not counting his NRCC fundraising, His money is probably in your state. Kick him out!

achamblee's diary

·
Davis was elected to Congress in 1994 (on the Contract with America) and has risen to lead the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the US Government Reform Committee.

In sum, Davis has obtained donations from Abramoff and "Team Abramoff." Even though that's thousands of dollars, it's nothing compared to the amounts lobbyists clients themselves gave Davis.

Even more striking is the amount from all the sources that Davis obtained from Abramoff, other lobbyists, and their clients for the NRCC when Davis was its head from 1998 to 2002.

This fundraising earned Davis the fear and power he wields over Republicans that don't vote the party line.

When reporting some of Abramoff's contributions, Davis actually reported that he could not include Abramoff's occupation because it was "unknown" and he had used his "best efforts" to find out.
Ironically, as a "reward" for raising so much money for the NRCC, Davis was handed the Chairmanship of the Government Reform Committee by the Republican Majority, over Chris Shays who wanted the job and had more seniority.

In his new position on the Reform Committee, Davis would have not only had the responsibility to know what Abramoff and Delay were up to, he would be in a position to decline to exercise oversight to stop the illegal fundraising.

The Democrats have tried to get various hearings on the lobbying abuses and other oversight failures by Davis and his Government Reform Committee. Since Davis controls the agenda of the Committee, they are powerless to even get the subject on the agenda.

As the money-go-round went faster, Davis would participate enthusiastically, raising $312,000 from Abramoff's tribal clients for the NRCC during that time,

According to Public Citizen's Bankroller's Report, only a few lobbyists donate any amounts that require reporting ($200 or more). Nevertheless, Davis has a hand in hundreds of PACS and financial schemes, and he gets a big share of this one:

Lobbyists and the political action committees of their firms have contributed at least $103.1 million to members of Congress since 1998. This figure is more than 90 percent higher than what is reported by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which has been the most authoritative source to date, because this study's methodology cast a wider net to capture lobbyists' contributions.

The percentage of lobbyists making personal contributions is small. Just 27.1 percent (7,350) of the 27,121 people who registered as lobbyists since 1998 have contributed at least $200 to a single congressional candidate or PAC. Only contributions of $200 or more are reported by the FEC.

Lobbyists who have contributed at least $10,000 to members of Congress comprise only 6.1 percent of all lobbyists and only 22.3 percent of the lobbyists who have made at least one contribution of $200 or more. Nevertheless, they have accounted for more than fourth-fifths (83.4 percent) of all the money contributed to members of Congress by lobbyists since 1998.

Davis's biggest lobbyist contributor is Dan Mattoon, a lobbyist who worked with DeLay and Abramoff on the K Street Project and a principal in the 18-year-old firm of Podesta Mattoon, which describes itself as a "bipartisan government relations and public affairs" firm.

Mattoon's online biography says he has worked with Republican representatives for over 30 years. He is a close friend of House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert (R-Ill.) At Hastert's request, Mattoon left BellSouth, where he had been vice president of congressional affairs for 15 years, to help [Davis] run the [NRCC] and help the GOP retain control of the House in 2000.

Mattoon's biography says, "for more than 30 years, he has provided political and strategic legislative counsel to House Republican members, and is a trusted advisor to many of the Washington political elite, including Speaker Hastert, House Majority Whip Blunt, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Pryce, and NRCC Chairman Reynolds." Each of the four is among the top 10 congressional recipients of campaign contributions from Mattoon. Mattoon also hired Joshua Hastert, the speaker's son, as a lobbyist.

Mattoon's wife, Jane, once served as treasurer of Hastert's leadership Political Action Committee.

Mattoon was involved in a Republican effort to wring more money out of lobbyists for Republican candidates.

He was one of a small group of lobbyists who met with then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) at a dinner hosted by now-disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Abramoff's Signatures restaurant in January 2004 to discuss the issue.

"There has been a concern that not enough folks who are out there making money based on their relation to the Hill are giving enough of their own money to the Republican Party," a GOP aide said of the initiative to gin up more lobbyist contributions to Republican lawmakers.

While the deputy director of the [NRCC] in 1999, [the same time Davis was NRCC head], Mattoon seems to have been involved in a decision to transfer $500,000 from the NRCC to the U.S. Family Network, a 501(c)(4) group that operated in the same Capitol Hill townhouse as the political action committees of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).

Mattoon said the transfer was made because of the ties former DeLay Chief of Staff Ed Buckham had to the group, and with the expectation that the money would be used to aid Republicans in the 2000 elections. "The Family Network is a group that based on our view of Ed Buckham's strengths in the family community and his political strengths will have an equally important impact in the elections, favorably for Republicans," Mattoon said.

In 2004, the FEC fined the NRCC $280,000 for its transfer of the $500,000 and the subsequent use of the money to finance ads attacking vulnerable Democrats.

After DeLay announced plans to resign from Congress, Mattoon continued to praise him, calling him "one of the founding fathers of the Republican majority in the House," and saying that, "Tom has a strong legacy that he should be proud of."

PodestaMattoon's top-paying client since 1998 has been The Science Coalition, which represents 60 universities. The Coalition has paid $2.6 million for the firm's services since 2001. The Coalition periodically honors members of Congress, typically those serving on appropriations committees, such as Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.) and former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, upon whom the Coalition bestowed its "Champion of Science" award in 2004. Cunningham has subsequently pleaded guilty to accepting $2.4 million in bribes from contractors and is serving an eight-year prison sentence.

The University of California system, a member of the Coalition, received more than $3.7 million in earmarks in 2005.

by: Andrea Chamblee @ Mon Sep 04, 2006 at 23:35:11 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

by: Andrea Chamblee @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 08:46:29 AM CDT
[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
 You must enter a subject for your comment
More on Davis and Matoon (4.00 / 2)

As we know, DeLay's legal troubles are related to his use of "pass-through" organizations to raise money from groups who either don't want to be identified, can't donate any more because they are at a cap, or would violate laws such as Texas laws that prohibit certain out-of-state money for state campaigns. Tom Davis and Dan Mattoon colluded to commit that offense as well.

A story about the complaint is here. The FEC findings of guilt against the two conspirators is here: PARTY MISUSE OF SOFT MONEY TO PAY FOR ISSUE ADS RESULTS IN $280,000 CIVIL PENALTY

The DCCC's complaint alleges that Davis and DeLay have essentially created three subsidiaries of the NRCC that are not required to obey campaign finance laws. By doing so, the complaint says, "the NRCC has created a web of organizations to do what it may not do on its own."

The outside organizations named in the complaint -- the US Family Network, the Republican Majority Issues Committee and Americans for Economic Growth -- are all associated with DeLay's and Davis' political operations. None of the groups are required to disclose their donors.

The NRCC gave $500,000 to US Family Network on Oct. 20, the largest single donation the committee has made this year.

The complaint also said the groups "are established, financed, maintained and controlled by the very same individuals who run the NRCC."

by: Andrea Chamblee @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 10:10:29 AM CDT
The authors of the last story on Davis corruption are atoharrowr@washpost.com (Robert O'Harrow) andhighams@washpost.com (Scott Highams)

by: Andrea Chamblee @ Tue Sep 05, 2006 at 12:42:10 PM CDT
[ Parent ]

I just found this on DKos, a quote where Abramoff ridicules any politician - like Davis did above - who said they "didn't know Jack":

"Any important Republican who comes out and says they didn't know me is almost certainly lying," he says. Such lies are not just, well, lies, but dumb to boot, he adds, for, as his own humiliations suggest, old e-mails never die; they just sit on hard drives, waiting to be subpoenaed and then to be leaked to the press. "This is not an age when you can run away from facts," he declares. "I had to deal with my records, and others will have to deal with theirs."

Forbes,

NPR

by: Andrea Chamblee @ Thu Sep 07, 2006 at 14:26:44 PM CDT

by: you @ soon
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
 You must enter a subject for your comment
Tom Davis has ties to Abramoff's K Street Project though super-lobbyist Dan Mattoon 10 comments

Democrat Andrew Hurst, candidate for the 11th congressional district of Virginia, criticized Congressman Tom Davis (R-11) for accepting a $500 contribution from embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff and waiting five years to return the money. Hurst also demanded to know why Davis' campaign failed to disclose Abramoff's occupation to the Federal Election Commission, as required by federal law.

"The people of the 11th district deserve to know the truth about the relationship between Representative Davis and Jack Abramoff," said Hurst. "The damage has been done here. Votes and legislative action by the Republican majority were influenced by all of the funds paid or solicited by Jack Abramoff, and the money was spent to elect people to office. Giving contributions to charity years after the fact is insufficient to alleviate the Republican culture of corruption. After more than a decade in Washington, Tom Davis is an integral part of that culture."

In a quarterly report dated April 15, 2000 Davis claimed to have made "Best efforts" to determine Mr. Abramoff's employer and occupation,

http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?20035472449 ).

However, Abramoff was a well-known lobbyist by that time with strong ties to the Bush Administration and to Republicans in Congress.

"It's very difficult to believe that Congressman Davis did not know or could not determine Abramoff's occupation. He was a lobbyist and influence peddler with deep ties to the Republican establishment. It appears that Davis has skirted campaign finance law and misled his constituents. He should come clean about his relationship with Jack Abramoff," said James Walkinshaw, Andrew Hurst's campaign manager.

Today’s Tom Davis scandals:

Tom Davis knew about Walter Reed conditions in 2004, but did not want to embarrass his Party or his President. See Congressional Quarterly March 7, 2007.

Davis accepted campaign contributions from the Halliburton-connected contractor for Walter Reed during the decline of the staff and facility.

At GSA, Tom Davis knew Lurita Doan was firing auditors, giving GSA contracts to friends.

Davis forced out previous GSA manager Angela Styles who had been pushing for audits of incompetent contractors, replaced her with David Safavian, a felon who sold access to contracts to Jack Abramoff. See more on Ms. Styles here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Safavian

Tom Davis (R-VA) was responsible for oversight before Henry Waxman (D-CA) took over in January 2007.

DailyKos is tracking the corruption and waste the Oversight Committee has been exposing since the Democrats took over.

See http://on-the-bus.dailykos.com/

What did the Federal Election Commission say about Tom Davis’s diversion of half a million dollars of campaign contributions to an illegal entity? Read here:

Friday, 09 March 2007 Tom Davis scandals 46

Wednesday, 21 February 2007 Davis defends Tom DeLay 47

Thursday, 08 February 2007 Davis and Devolites Enterprises 321

Thursday, 25 January 2007 Tom Davis and the Abramoff tribal clients 46

Monday, 27 November 2006 Tom Davis and Tom Foley 350

Monday, 27 November 2006 The Fan With Subpoena Power 75

Monday, 27 November 2006 Tom Delay choses Tom Davis 83

Tuesday, 21 November 2006 Tom Davis and the Moonies 56

Tuesday, 21 November 2006 David Safavian, Colleague of Davis 108

Saturday, 14 October 2006 Virginian Traffic Woes 392

Wednesday, 06 September 2006 Tom Davis & Jack Abramoff, fined for collusion 171

Sunday, 30 July 2006 Whistleblowers 102

Friday, 14 July 2006 Tom Davis subpoenas Terri Schiavo 1100

Monday, 22 May 2006 Tom Davis and lobbyists 361

Monday, 22 May 2006 Congress asks Davis to Investigate Corruption 353

Tom Davis Reform Committee Hearings Produce Campaign Contributions ( 2 items )

Tom Davis has abused his Chairmanship of the Government Reform Committee. Read how here:

Reform Committee Members Ask Davis to Let the Committee Do Its Job ( 3 items )

A Congressional Report in 2006 identifies 15 key oversight issues involving President Bush and the Administration that the House Committee on Government Reform and Congess has failed to investigate. Tom Davis is head of the Government Reform Committee; Davis has repeatedly refused Democrats requests to schedule investigations of the many instances of incompetence and corruption in Congress and in government.

Instead of investigating government issues, the core repsonsibility of the committee, he has used taxpayer money to investigate baseball and the Terri Schiavo case that have nothing to do with Federal government responsibilities. The subjects requested for scheduling by the Democrats include:

• The role of the White House in manipulating intelligence about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda;

• The responsibility of senior Administration officials for the abuse of detainees;

• The role of White House officials in leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent;

• The role of the Vice President’s office in the award of Halliburton contracts;

• The responsibility of senior White House officials in the failed response to Hurricane Katrina;

• The secret wiretapping of U.S. citizens by the National Security Agency;

• The identity of the energy industry contributors who met with the Vice President’s energy task force;

• The role of the White House in withholding key Medicare cost estimates from Congress;

• Evidence of conflicts of interest at multiple federal agencies and the White House;

• The increasing politicization of science-based federal agencies;

• The failure of the Department of Justice to enforce voting rights laws;

• Contract abuses at the Department of Homeland Security;

• The influence of industry lobbyists in writing EPA regulations; • The influence of the tobacco industry lobbyists on U.S. tobacco policies; and

• The role of former Attorney General John Ashcroft in illegal campaign finance activities.

Read the report...

Tom Davis Makes A Fool of Himself

Congressman Davis on a rampage to defend the corruption of Lurita Doan and this administration even publicly released a private email from Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) to a personal friend mocking Davis.

August 21, 2007

Is Waxman Protecting Tom Davis in His Politicization Investigation?

by emptywheel

In this post I trace the tangled web in which Tom Davis is investigating Scott Bloch (head of the Office of Special Counsel) at the same time as Bloch may be investigating Tom Davis. The short logic goes like this:

Tom Davis is investigating Scott Bloch (and collecting all Bloch emails that refer to any legislator)
The WaPo story on Sunday looks like it was based primarily on leaks from OSC. It included details that extend back to the time Davis worked with Rove on these issues.

This suggests Bloch may include Davis among his targets

But Waxman, when he sent out a fresh request for this information today, did not request documents that might incriminate Davis

.
As I point out in this post, Davis' demand for Bloch's email--including any emails that reference federal lawmakers--would net emails that refer in any manner to Davis himself. Even if those emails referring to Davis as part of Bloch's investigation into Rove's asset deployment teams!!! If the WaPo story came from leaks from Bloch, the leaks may have been an effort to get Waxman--or someone else--to pick up an investigation stymied by Davis' collection of Bloch's emails.

The whole thing is very twisted ... and troubling.

Update: One more reason to think the leaks in the WaPo came from OSC. There was a report

“It is Congressman Tom Davis, who has been acting like Doan’s defense counsel, saying reckless things about OSC’s report and calling for my resignation. Weird Kabuki theatre, all of this. I am going up for my Reauthorization hearing on July 12, and Davis will either show up as ranking member of the larger committee, or have Cong. Mica do his dirty work of raking me over the coals.”

So Davis is on a mission to prove to the world that he is as silly as Bloch predicted. Does he not get how stupid he looks publicizing someone’s personal email describing just how pathetic he is?

Private E-Mail, Made Public, Trips Up Special Counsel at Hearing
By Stephen Barr
Friday, July 13, 2007; Page D01

Those darn e-mails will bite you every time.

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) yesterday surprised Scott J. Bloch, a presidential appointee who heads the Office of Special Counsel, by reading aloud an e-mail Bloch sent to his friends. One of those friends forwarded it to Davis, probably because Bloch criticizes Davis in it.

Before disclosing the e-mail at a House subcommittee hearing, Davis asked Bloch what he would do if he learned of an agency official sending out news clips and personal commentary about agency business during working hours, even if it was done through a private e-mail account.

The e-mail alludes to testimony by a Bush appointee, Lurita Alexis Doan, who heads t he General Services Administration. Bloch's office has sent a report to the White House alleging that Doan violated the Hatch Act when she asked other political appointees at a campaign briefing how the GSA team could help "our candidates" in the next election.

In the e-mail, Bloch referred his friends to a news account of Doan's testimony at a House hearing. He wrote:

"It is Congressman Tom Davis, who has been acting like Doan's defense counsel, saying reckless things about OSC's report and calling for my resignation. Weird Kabuki theatre, all of this. I am going up for my Reauthorization hearing on July 12, and Davis will either show up as ranking member of the larger committee, or have Cong. Mica do his dirty work of raking me over the coals."

Bloch's forecast was correct -- Davis and Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.) showed up.

Davis told Bloch that he wanted all e-mails Bloch has sent on his AOL account since Jan. 26 that mentioned the Hatch Act, Doan, Davis, Mica or any other government official or member of Congress.

"It is not going to happen," Bloch responded. "Let's move on to something real."

But Davis did not budge, asking questions suggesting that he thinks Bloch has shown poor judgment and a lack of professionalism in the Doan case.

Bloch protested that his privacy was being invaded and that the matter was inappropriate for a congressional hearing. At one point, he said, "If you want to exchange personal attacks, perhaps we should go outside." That comment elicited nervous laughter from the audience, leading Bloch to quickly clarify that he wasn't making a threat.

Bloch heads an independent agency whose mission is to protect federal employee rights, but he has been under investigation for the past two years because of allegations that he has run roughshod over his staff and allowed politics to play a role in some of his decisions.

The investigation is in the hands of the inspector general at the Office of Personnel Management, and Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), who chaired yesterday's hearing by the House federal workforce subcommittee, asked Bloch if he was cooperating.

Bloch said he has turned over documents that have been requested. He called the allegations against him "reckless and false and scandalous."

Questions by Davis and others amounted to an attempt to suppress and taint the investigation of Doan, Bloch said. "I will not be intimidated," he said. Davis shot back that the facts will speak for themselves.

« The "I" Doesn't Stand for "Independent" Main Russ Tice: Subpoena=Government Intimidation »

Tom Davis: Cozy With Contractors

The Washington Post ran a lengthy piece today on the relationship between Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) and ICG Government, a consulting firm founded by a longtime associate of Davis’ (pdf) from the Northern Virginia information technology (IT) industry. Adding to a list of government officials or members of Congress and their spouses who have engaged in questionable activity (e.g., Rep. John Doolittle and David Safavian and their wives), the article reported that the firm employs Davis’ wife, Jeannemarie Devolites, whose clients include IT companies hoping to secure federal contracts.

Two months after the founding of ICG Government, Davis secured the chairmanship of the House Government Reform Committee. During this time, he introduced the Services Acquisition Reform Act (SARA), a bill ostensibly intended to streamline federal contracting, but which ended up removing longstanding safeguards (pdf) meant to protect the federal government and taxpayers from contractor fraud and mismanagement. Today’s article calls into question whether Davis’ reforms are pro-taxpayer or pro-contractor.

Davis asked the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to consider whether any of the following was in fact a violation of House rules: his wife’s consulting work with companies seeking federal contracts, his speaking engagements at ICG conferences, and the appearance of ICG clients at witnesses before his own committee. The Committee responded that, on the surface, Davis and his wife had not violated any House rules (pdf). Nonetheless, the article highlights a number of troubling issues which need to be addressed.

First, contracting consultants like ICG are not obliged to disclose their clients, while registered lobbyists must adhere to public reporting requirements. It seems clear that the firm serves as a critical link between contractors and politicians. The article quotes Paul Smith, a sales executive for a North Carolina software company, who called ICG’s employees “door-openers.” POGO has previously recommended that Congress require contracting consultants such as ICG to register with the Office of Government Ethics. So long as ICG continues to “open the door” to the offices of politicians like Davis, the need for transparency remains urgent.

Second, the Post article details ICG’s disturbing role in convincing the Pentagon to continue its contract with Artel, a satellite service company from Reston, VA. After learning that the Pentagon was planning to scrap the contract, Artel’s CEO worked with Senator-turned-lobbyist Tim Hutchinson and ICG’s Donald Upson to draft a memo to the contracting officials on Davis’ official letterhead. The letter, which included Davis’ signature at the bottom, prompted a meeting between Davis and Pentagon officials in the Congressman’s office. A few months later, the Defense Department changed its course and concluded that the contract with Artel was a success. Although Artel’s CEO claims that “none of the companies needed ICG or Upson to get to anyone in Congress,” the decidedly intimate relationship between the contracting consultant and Davis is highly suspect.

Third, despite Davis’ insistence that he and his wife have committed no wrongdoing, one cannot help but be reminded of a previous incident in which lobbyists and defense contractors threw a holiday party for the House Government Reform Committee. Sponsors of the party included Innovative Defense Strategies (IDS), which has had several suspicious connections to Davis.

Last year, for instance, IDS contributed to his wife’s campaign while she was running for a seat on the Virginia State Senate. The firm also employed Peter Sirh, a former Staff Director of Davis’ Government Reform Committee who has spoken numerous times at ICG events about the intricacies of federal contracting. Incidentally, the head of IDS, Richard Carroll, serves on the board of the Small Business Technology Coalition along with Nicholas Karangelen, president of Trident Systems Inc.

In addition to Karangelen’s role in a recent controversy involving Rep. Lewis (R-CA) and his stepdaughter, both have made contributions to Davis and his Future Leaders Leadership PAC (you can check out the FEC filings here and here). As a whole, the IT and telecommunications industries have been undeniably kind to Rep. Davis over the years.

With all the recent news about cozy dealings between contractors, consultants and elected officials like Davis, taxpayers have every right to demand greater oversight for federal acquisition and contracting.

Michael Smallberg

Hey K Street Buddy –

Calm down. You’ve going to too many of those Tom Davis/Steve Kelman/Stan Soloway (the “trifecta”) contractor sponsored confabs -- the old “What’s good for the contractors is good for the American people” meetings. No one doubts that most contractors are honest. However, there are a bunch of favored large defense, IT and consulting contractors, who dictate policies and requirements to the government. And believe me, these contractors place the interests of their shareholders over those of taxpayers. Tom Davis is their chief Congressional “enabler.”

To “H. Kline” – Tom Davis went after Angela Styles because she resisted his contractor-inspired initiatives, and she understood more about the issues, than either Davis, his staff, or the contractor lobbyists. What amazed me more than anything was how little the Washington Post article focuses on Davis’ attempts to force Styles out, and the Davis’ staff direct interference in the operations of her office. Essentially, Davis forced OMB to shed any meaningful procurement oversight or regulatory role.

Posted by: Connie the Contractor Aug 3, 2006 2:33:55 PM

Tom Davis sucks and is one of the Biggest LIARS congress has ever seen, the very sight of that jerk makes my stomache turn, I sent him an email some time ago regarding the steriod scandal in baseball and he blocked out my email simply because i had a differnt oppinon, Davis sucks and always will.

The congressman's defense in the Washington Post article was that his wife got the lobbying job "before we were engaged." What he left out was the obvious that basically everyone in Northern Virginia knows -- before they were engaged but after they were openly having an affair that began when they were both still married to their former spouses. Who does he think he is fooling? Giving Jeanemarie Devolites a job before she was engaged to Tom Davis was tantamount to getting an audience with Tom Davis.

GOT TO LOVE THOSE OLD TIME RELIGIOUS VALUES.

Tom Davis (R-VA):

“[I’m] very disappointed in Libby, and the White House, and the vice president and the president. They should have taken care of this a long time ago. They should have done their own investigation. They’re going to get very little sympathy on Capitol Hill, at least from me…They brought this on themselves.” October 29, 2005 9:56 am Comment (8)

Davis’s statement is two dollars short and several days late. Where was he weeks, months and years ago? But that was then and this is now; what is Davis going to do for us today?

Wife, Friend Tie Congressman to Consulting FirmCompany's Clients Say They Get Access to Va. Republican

By Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott HighamWashington Post Staff WritersFriday, July 28, 2006; A01

Two months before Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) became chairman of the powerful House Government Reform Committee in January 2003, one of his close friends formed ICG Government, a consulting company for technology firms seeking government contracts.

Donald W. Upson had risen with Davis through the burgeoning Northern Virginia technology community, where they worked side by side as executives at a company that sold computer systems to the government.

Davis went on to Congress, where he became a leading voice on government contracting and an advocate for his technology industry constituents in Fairfax and Prince William counties. Upson became the top technology official for the Virginia government before reentering the private sector and starting ICG.

From the beginning, Upson worked with Davis and his staff as he built his consulting business, which holds seminars on procurement and advises clients on winning government technology contracts worth billions of dollars. Those contracts often came under the oversight of Davis's committee. One of Upson's first hires was Jeannemarie Devolites, a Virginia politician who later married the congressman.

ICG has a record of satisfied clients, who say the firm has provided them with access to the congressman and his staff.

In an opinion issued this week, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct told the congressman that his wife can work for the consulting firm as long as the couple does not personally benefit from any official acts by the congressman. The committee told them to take care to "avoid a claim that you are allowing your official title to be used for private gain."

Davis, 57, acknowledged that Upson, 51, is "a very close confidant and political ally." But the congressman said that Upson did not have "unique access" to his office and that his wife has no business on Capitol Hill. Davis added that he had broken no laws and saw no ethics or disclosure violations.

ICG's relationship with Davis has played out on a number of levels. The firm has arranged for clients to meet with Davis in his congressional office. Upson has set up dinners and receptions with the lawmaker for his clients. And ICG has arranged for clients to testify before Davis's committee. In one case, Upson's team wrote the testimony. Some of those clients, who pay ICG about $8,000 per month, have told The Washington Post that their testimony was a part of marketing strategies developed by ICG to bolster the clients' "clout" and "visibility" on Capitol Hill and with government contracting officials.

On one occasion, Upson helped a client write a threatening letter to the Pentagon that was then sent out with Davis's signature on his committee's letterhead.

Davis's wife, a part-time ICG consultant, has contacted senior government technology officials on behalf of clients, including an undersecretary at the Department of Homeland Security. Upson paid her $78,000 last year for working "10 to 20 hours a week," primarily at home on her cellphone, she said. She makes $18,000 a year as a Virginia legislator.

"I think you'd be hard pressed to say that we started to take sides in something in any kind of manner, undue manner, where we used the power of this committee to alter a decision that was against the interests of the American people or the taxpayers," Davis said in a two-hour interview at his Capitol Hill office July 11. "I don't think Don's ever abused this in his relations with me."

Davis said that Upson hired his wife before they were engaged and that she is entitled to earn a living. He said the couple takes steps to ensure that she does not appeal to him on behalf of ICG clients.

Upson's firm is part of a cottage industry of former government officials and others who hire themselves out as "contracting consultants" to firms seeking government work. Although they do some of the same things as lobbyists, they do not register with Congress or publicly report their activities, as lobbyists are required to do.

Federal law generally requires people to register as lobbyists if they approach lawmakers or government officials with the intent to influence the "formulation, modification or adoption" of legislation, regulation or policy. Congress said it passed the law to "increase public confidence in the integrity of Government." Failure to register can result in civil fines.

Unlike lobbyists, contracting consultants such as Upson and Devolites Davis do not publicly disclose their clients' identities because they do not register as lobbyists. They also do not reveal the issues they have handled or the fees they have been paid. But they offer some of the same services traditionally provided by lobbyists.

"The issue is: Are they lobbying?" said Jan Baran, a former general counsel of the Republican National Committee who specializes in lobbying and ethics law. "Their activities strongly resemble what lobbyists here in Washington do every day."

Upson said he had not registered because less than 20 percent of his business is lobbying.

"There have been a limited number of instances when I have had contact with Congress or the Executive Branch in the course of conducting my broader work; but this contact constitutes a small and episodic part of the services ICG has provided its clients," Upson said in a statement. "I have engaged an attorney who is an expert regarding the lobbying statute. He has advised me that such de minimus activities -- an occasional meeting with an Executive branch official or Congressional staff or a draft of a document -- does not require registration."

A day after receiving questions from The Post last week about his business practices and his relationship with Davis, Upson consulted with his attorney and filed a lobbying report disclosing his work on behalf of one of his clients, Juniper Networks Inc. He declined to identify his other clients.

A Friend to Contractors

Davis's tenure in Congress has been marked by a series of accomplishments. He enacted the D.C. Financial Control Board Act and urged reforms of the District's troubled child-protection system. Davis has used his committee to hold numerous oversight hearings into issues such as the war against narco-terrorists and the Food and Drug Administration's ability to protect the public from harmful prescription drugs.

Davis also stands as one of the most knowledgeable members on technology issues in Congress.

"I come out of the contracting business," said Davis, a former procurement attorney for two government contractors in Northern Virginia. "I know a lot about it. I litigated this stuff. I obviously have a philosophy and a bent on this that other members don't. But I also have an understanding that goes four decimal points deep."

A graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, Davis served on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors in the 1980s and early 1990s, rising to chairman. He gained a reputation as a moderate, brilliant political strategist.

At the time, Davis also served as corporate attorney for two companies, including PRC Inc., a technology contractor in McLean where Upson worked. In 1994, Davis was elected to Congress to represent Northern Virginia. Upson served as his political adviser.

In Congress, Davis has been a leader in reshaping the nation's procurement system, pressing to overhaul what he considers to be the government's inefficient contracting rules. He has been recognized as a "True Blue Reformer" by Public Citizen, a good-government group, for what his biography calls "his consistently strong support of political and ethics reforms."

But to some, Davis's persona as a reformer does not square with his close relationship with technology corporations, many of them based in Northern Virginia, that have greatly increased their federal contracting business since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In the past five years, technology and telecommunications companies have been the largest contributors to Davis's and his wife's separate campaigns and political action committees. Those companies and their employees have donated more than $1.1 million of the $6.4 million given to the couple's campaigns, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Virginia Public Access Project.

A former top contracting official for the Bush administration who clashed with Davis repeatedly over procurement policy wrote a stinging e-mail about him to her boss in May 2002.

"The businesses in Mr. Davis district are primarily government contractors and he wants to make sure the $$ are free flowing without much regard to the fiscal consequences," said the e-mail written by Angela B. Styles, who was chief of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget at the time.

'My Niche'

Devolites Davis, 50, said she made it on her own as a consultant for ICG. She cited her experience as a state lawmaker who has worked for years on technology policy, including anti-spamming legislation and procurement issues in Virginia.

"This is just my area of expertise and my niche," she said in an interview last week. "With a deep interest in technology, math and science, certainly it was something that I came to understand, the business and the industry."

When Devolites Davis joined ICG in 2003, she was listed on the firm's Web site as a senior associate. Her biography on ICG's Web site now lists her as a partner. She said in the interview that she is not a partner but a salaried employee. Her pay rose last year to $6,500 from $4,000 a month.

She said she got a raise "as the company grew and its resources grew."

ICG collected $830,000 in revenue last year, Devolites Davis said. The firm, based in Tysons Corner with an office in Richmond, has seven employees. Upson declined to discuss the firm's finances.

"She has a couple of little clients she does, and she doesn't touch the federal sector," Davis said. "We've tried to put up bars in this case where she doesn't bring anybody up here."

But Devolites Davis told The Post that she does represent clients with interests in the federal sector -- three of her four assignments involve reaching out to federal officials.

Davis's staff director, David Marin, later said the lawmaker "misspoke" because he "is so far removed from Jeannemarie's work at ICG that he did not know exactly who her clients were, what she does for them or who she reaches out to on their behalf. He just knew she has no business before Congress."

Devolites Davis said she does not interact with her husband on ICG business.

"There is a firewall between me and Tom, and I would never take an action that would raise a question of unethical behavior on the part of either Tom or myself as elected officials," she said.

Upson said Devolites Davis has been careful to follow the rules.

"To the best of my knowledge, Jeannemarie has never dealt with Tom Davis or his staff about anything related to ICG or its clients, or any business arrangement not related to ICG," Upson said in his statement. "Jeannemarie works hard for every dollar she is paid."

Devolites Davis said her ICG work is not lobbying because she does not try to influence votes or the awarding of contracts.

"We help make connections so that folks can build relationships on their own," she said, adding that the firm's main business is educating industry and government officials.

After questions from The Post, Davis requested an opinion from the House ethics committee on whether Devolites Davis's work for ICG violates House rules.

"Generally the answer is 'no,' " the committee members said in their response Wednesday. But they told Davis that the rules could be violated if his wife invoked his name or position when "soliciting clients or conducting other activities on behalf of the firm, whether or not the client was previously known to you or your wife."

The committee told Davis that compensation to his wife could be considered indirect compensation to him and that he needs "to bear in mind" that issue when he considers any efforts "that may benefit your wife's business interests." Davis should contact the ethics committee for "particular guidance" about requests to appear at conferences sponsored by ICG that might benefit his wife, the letter said.

Devolites Davis, who has served in the Virginia General Assembly since 1998, worked closely with Davis as she built her political career.

In 1995, the married mother of four decided to run for a seat that became vacant after Davis left the Fairfax board for Congress. She was a mathematics major at the University of Virginia. While running for office, she highlighted her work as a "super volunteer" for the Girl Scouts of the USA, the PTA and other organizations. She lost the race.

Two years later, she ran for the General Assembly and won, with Davis as her campaign manager. Davis began to direct tens of thousands of dollars from political action committees under his control to her campaign. Over the next decade, as she moved from being a delegate to a leader of the Virginia Senate, Davis's political action committees gave her more than $172,000.

'They're Door-Openers'

From the start, ICG openly touted its ties to Davis. The firm's Web site featured a photograph of the congressman speaking in front of an ICG banner.

Davis and his current and former staffers have appeared at least 15 times as featured speakers or participants at seminars organized by ICG and affiliated firms at places such as the Ronald Reagan Building in the District or the Tysons Corner Ritz-Carlton. At least two ICG-organized events were held in the Government Reform Committee chambers.

Some ICG clients said they sponsored the seminars so they could appear as experts alongside Davis, his staff or government officials. The sessions cost as much as $895 per day and cover such topics as Homeland Security contracts or computer security mandates. They are marketed to company executives and government officials, with the latter reimbursed at taxpayer expense by their agencies.

"This is not something we do exclusively for ICG," Davis said in the interview. "I do this routinely for a lot of companies. Okay? And I think the record is very clear on this. If I did this for two or three or a couple of select people, I think you could make a reasonable inference that I am using my office to talk to a select few for pay. But I talk to a lot of groups."

Companies said they were pleased with the services ICG delivered, which included dinners with Davis at upscale steakhouses such as Morton's, receptions with the congressman and his wife, and meetings with senior government officials.

Paul Smith, a sales executive for Red Hat Inc., a software company based in Raleigh, N.C., said ICG and other consultants are an integral part of the contracting business.

"Don't take this wrong, they're doing some influence-peddling," said Smith, adding that Red Hat officials have participated in events organized by ICG. "They're door-openers."

NetSec was among ICG's earliest clients. Ken Ammon, the former president of NetSec, said the Herndon computer security firm turned to ICG and Upson because it was having a tough time selling its services to the government.

NetSec signed a year-long consulting deal with ICG worth close to $100,000 in June 2003. ICG worked with NetSec to craft a "product marketing" plan, Ammon said in an e-mail to The Post. As part of the plan, ICG also pledged to organize one major and four minor events focusing on NetSec's services. At one of the events, Davis was a keynote speaker.

Ammon also testified before Davis's Government Reform Committee in October 2003.

"Our ability to stand before the committee and bring to light what we thought were areas which needed improvement greatly increased our clout with our customer base in government," Ammon said.

Davis said he did not know the executives who testified were ICG clients because those arrangements were made by his staff.

"We're not doing anything in a conscious way to help anybody make a profit," Davis said. "But we want to get good companies up here, and I think it's important to note that companies come up here all the time and meet with us without [Upson] or any representative. And we'll say, 'Do you want to testify?' So, yeah, we do that.

"That doesn't deliver a contract to them. That doesn't get them a nickel from the government. That doesn't put pressure on anybody to hire them. They are simply getting up and telling their story."

An Official Letter

Artel Inc., a small satellite service company based in Reston, hired ICG in June 2005 when a federal contract worth up to $2.2 billion over 10 years faced possible termination at the Pentagon, a company official said. The contract, which Artel and two other firms won in 2001, represented nearly 70 percent of Artel's revenue, company officials said.

Congress had requested that the secretary of defense study whether the military could save money on its satellite services. Department of Defense officials were considering a plan to scrap the contract and give the work to larger companies.

Artel's chief executive, Abbas Yazdani, said he hired a registered lobbying firm that included former senator Tim Hutchinson, who arranged a meeting with Davis. Yazdani said he also turned to Upson, who Yazdani said was initially under contract with Artel to work on state and local issues.

Yazdani said in an interview that he needed help because he believed his company was being outmaneuvered by lobbyists representing the larger companies.

Upson sent Hutchinson a memo spelling out steps to stop the contract change by the Pentagon's Defense Information Systems Agency, according to a copy of the e-mail obtained by The Post.

Upson also offered to help craft a letter that could be sent to Davis for his signature.

"He volunteered," Yazdani said. "He said he had some experience."

Several weeks later, Upson, Yazdani, Hutchinson and others were at work on a letter that would be signed by Davis and sent to Charles Croom, the lieutenant general in charge of the satellite program.

"Abbas and I have made edits on the attached, now designated as Ver 3. Most are wordsmithing," Artel executive William Schmidt wrote in an Aug. 9 e-mail to Upson and Hutchinson with the subject line "RE: Draft of Davis letter."

After Upson edited the letter, he replied the following day.

"Here are my changes that I will submit to Ellen in 30 minutes unless stopped in my car with major objections," Upson wrote to the Artel executives and their lobbyists.

"Ellen" is Ellen Brown, Davis's legislative director.

Marin, Davis's staff director, said the office had no record that Brown received that e-mail from Upson.

On Aug. 24, a letter bearing Davis's signature was sent to Croom. Much of the language was identical to the draft prepared by Artel, its lobbyists and Upson.

The two-page letter was clear: It said Davis was concerned about the Pentagon's plan to change the satellite contract.

"It is my intention to fully explore these and related issues in my Committee," the letter to Croom said. "I have requested support from the Government Accountability Office. I urge that further action be withheld."

On Sept. 8, Croom responded to Davis, defending his agency's procurement strategy. A few days later, John Brosnan, a procurement specialist on Davis's committee staff, faxed Croom's letter to Artel's lobbyists.

"I haven't had a chance to talk with John about this, but I should be able to get his feedback tomorrow," a colleague of Hutchinson, the senator-turned-lobbyist, wrote in an e-mail to Artel's executives Sept. 12.

On Oct. 13, Davis signed another letter to Croom. This time, the letter said that "since you have chosen not to provide me with substantive responses to my questions, I will be required to get the information I need in another manner." The letter does not specify what "another manner" meant.

On Feb. 19, Croom and John G. Grimes, the assistant secretary of defense for networks and information integration, met with Davis in his office for a half-hour, a Pentagon spokesman said.

Four months later, on June 6, the Defense Department released a study that analyzed spending on the satellite contract. The conclusion: The existing contract with Artel and the two other companies was working well and saving the government money.

Croom and Grimes declined to comment for this article. Yazdani declined to disclose how much the company paid ICG.

Yazdani said his dealings with ICG and Davis were proper. "None of the companies needed ICG or Upson to get to anyone in Congress or to Jeannemarie," Yazdani wrote in an e-mail to The Post. "We all had full access to Congressman Davis and had already met with him on more than one occasion."

'For the Record, I Didn't Write the Letter'

When asked by The Post about the Aug. 24 letter, Davis professed little knowledge of it and deferred to his staff.

"I don't think you'll find any letters that I write," the congressman said. "The staff writes them all. That doesn't mean I don't mark them up sometimes."

At first, Brosnan, Davis's procurement specialist, said he wrote the letter to Pentagon officials.

"As I recall, they weren't being as responsive as they probably should have been," Brosnan said. "They were kind of jerking me around."

When reporters showed Davis and Brosnan the draft letter, Brosnan acknowledged using the company's draft.

"If I misspoke, I'm sorry," Brosnan said. "But I'm responsible for the letter."

Davis said, "For the record, I didn't write the letter."

Brosnan said Davis's committee had used letters written by companies before, "but not very often."

Davis said that the practice "happens every day up here" and that it did not matter who actually wrote the letter.

"If my signature is on it at the end, I'll stand by it, whether I signed it or they signed it," he said. "But the reality is: So what?"

Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.), chairman of the House Small Business Committee, was among other lawmakers who wrote to the Pentagon expressing concern about the satellite contract. A spokesman for Manzullo said the congressman and his staff wrote their own letters.

Letters sent out on official stationery are never "ghost written" for Manzullo by corporate executives or their lobbyists, spokesman Rich Carter said. "We like to do our own research."

Kenneth A. Gross, former general counsel of the enforcement division at the Federal Election Commission and a specialist in congressional ethics law, said: "Mere reproduction can certainly look bad, but the practice is not legally actionable if the letter, in fact, reflects the views of the member."

Davis said he believed in the sentiments expressed in the letter and said he did not know that Artel was an ICG client. He said that it was Hutchinson who first brought the company's concerns to him and that he was simply sticking up for a local firm.

"You got a company here that thinks they're getting screwed by an agency, okay?" he said. "So we write a letter to the agency asking, 'What's your explanation?' "

'The Hearing Was a Deliverable'

In January, ICG and its business partners hosted a gathering of "more than 400 senior executives from the Executive Branch, Congress, state government and industry in a high energy environment" at the annual Consumer Electronic Show (CES) in Las Vegas, an ICG Web site said.

Davis, who appeared as a featured speaker, was accompanied by his wife. She later said she helped arrange for government officials to attend the event.

Over three nights and days, political luminaries mingled with senior government officials and industry executives along the Las Vegas strip at the event ICG called "CES Government."

Attending the conference led Juniper Networks to Davis and his committee. Juniper's director of business development, Chris Blake, met Upson in Las Vegas.

In February, Lou Anne Brossman, the public sector marketing director for Juniper, joined Blake and Upson for breakfast at the Hyatt Regency in Reston. In March, Juniper, which is based in Sunnyvale, Calif., and has an office in Herndon, signed a consulting agreement with ICG.

Brossman recalled in a recent interview that her company and ICG began working on an 18-month plan to create a reputation for Juniper in Congress as a "thought leader" on technology issues.

Brossman said Upson suggested that the company would benefit if Juniper chairman and chief executive Scott Kriens became more of a "talking head" on technology issues, such as teleworking. Upson said one way to do that was to testify before Davis's committee, according to Brossman.

On April 19, Upson called a Juniper executive to say that Davis was holding a hearing and that Kriens could be invited to testify. The subject: coping with a possible bird flu pandemic. Upson said Kriens could speak about the benefits of teleworking during a national crisis, Brossman said.

Two days later, officials at Juniper and ICG began to discuss Kriens's testimony, Brossman said. Upson arranged for Kriens and Brossman to meet Davis in his Capitol Hill office the night before the hearing.

"There's no way we would have gotten into his office otherwise for a relaxed five o'clock powwow," Brossman said.

"It's all about relationships and who you know," she said. "ICG knows what's important to the congressman."

On May 11, Kriens testified about "Working Through an Outbreak: Pandemic Flu Planning and Continuity of Operations." In a news release, Davis's staff said the aim was to examine how teleworking and other strategies could help keep the government operating in the event of a flu outbreak.

Brossman said the hearing was the result of a well-executed marketing plan that came with "detailed, expected deliverables."

Said Brossman: "The hearing was a deliverable."

Juniper declined to disclose how much it has paid ICG.

"That kind of puffery happens each and every day in Washington," Marin, Davis's staff director, wrote in a statement to The Post. "That Don [Upson] or his clients might be touting a meeting with Tom as a 'deliverable' is not only out of our control, but beyond our imagination, as access is our business."

Lobbyists Hold Holiday Party for House Govt Reform Committee

Deploying his deep pockets, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-VA) throws the annual holiday party for his committee staff. Some committees in Congress have their staff members cover the costs of their holiday party.

But House Government “Reform” Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) has come up a more creative arrangement. Lobbyists and defense contractors threw the annual holiday party for the Committee which, coincidentally, oversees federal agency contracting. Here's the invite.

Who needs Santa Claus when contractors have Chairman Tom Davis to thank for opening up the government’s coffers! By our calculation following the House gift rules, each of the nine sponsors could spend up to $450 per staff or member of Congress. That’s quite a party!!!

The December 15, 2005 bash was held in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building and was sponsored by:

-- McGuire Woods Consulting which employs former Tom Davis staffer Barnaby Harkins. Harkins worked for Davis for four years, “specifically focused on education, federal procurement and appropriations.” Harkins lobbies for one of the largest foreign-owned defense contractors, shipping giant Maersk. In addition, one of the firm's clients is defense contractor Northrup Grumman Mission Systems.

-- Patton Boggs, which, in 2005, retained Peter Sirh, the former Staff Director for Davis’ House Government Reform Committee and former Chief of Staff to Davis. Sirh helped Patton Boggs rake in a hefty $260,000 lobbying fee from MCI in the first six months of 2005, in part to “Assist MCI with contract issues relating to specific government contracts…” MCI is competing for a $20 billion telecommunications con tract which has been a pet project of Tom Davis. Committee staff members strenuously deny that Davis has a hand in choosing who gets the contract but a recent article suggested that contractors think otherwise.

Sirh’s access to Tom Davis was a hot commodity for Patton Boggs. While there, Sirh also lobbied for:

the DC government ($140,000 in fees in Jan-June, 2005)

Defense contractor ADS ($20,000 in fees from Jan-June, 2005)

Defense contractor DDL Omni Engineering ($20,000 in fees from Jan-June 2005)

PriceWaterhouseCoopers ($100,000 in fees from Jan-June 2005)

-- Innovative Defense Strategies, where Peter Sirh also worked in 2005, also sponsored the party. It’s an awfully strange coincidence that the firm gave a $5,000 political contribution to Tom Davis’ wife in 2003, although Jeanmarie Devolites and Tom weren’t married at that point.

--PodestaMatton which lobbied on behalf of the government’s #1 defense contractor, behemoth Lockheed Martin ($140,000 in fees from Jan-June 2005) as well as the Native American Contractors Association ($100,000 in fees from Jan-June, 2005). Hey, whatever happened to the Committee’s investigation into abuses in Native American contracting?

--Defense contractor BearingPoint which reported a whopping $500,000 in lobbying expenses in 2005 (that’s a lot of Christmas parties!) including on “Govt. Contracting issues.” BearingPoint (previously KPMG) has supported Tom Davis’ annual legislative goody bag of contractor favors (known in shorthand as SARA and ASIA), some provisions of which he has succeeded in attaching to Defense Authorization bills.

--Holland and Knight which openly brags about joining in a “drafting summit… with members of industry” held by Davis’ staff to draft that contractor legislation.

--Defense contractor General Dynamics, which opened a production facility in Tom Davis’ district a few years back. At the time, Davis bragged of playing “a pivotal role in bringing the project to Northern Virginia.” has infected Government Reform and races all over the country. But those are good reasons. has infected Government Reform and races all over the country. two months ago of OSC asking 18 agencies to save records going back to 2001. At the time, Waxman was only investigating 15 agencies.

We got rid of both the husband and wife team!

Out Of The Shadows And Out Of The Closet

2007-08-28T19:32:00.000-07:00

I Need more data, but it’s beginning to look like all the Gay/Lesbian Rights Issues Could Be Resolved If Liberals And The Guys And Gals In The Closet On The Hill Would Just Vote Together!

NRA Board Member and Senate Point Man for Gun Industry, Larry Craig, Arrested for Solicitation of Gay Sex in Twin Cities Airport Washroom

Posted On 27th August 2007

When it rains NRA Board Member perverts, it pours.

We posted a commentary about the obscene, death-threatening rant of NRA Board member and [1] troubled rock star Ted Nugent on Friday. After just a guitar lick of time, word comes that NRA Board Member and United States Senator Larry Craig (a Republican from Idaho and NRA Board Member since 1983) [2] pleaded guilty to charges of "lewd" behavior in a Twin Cities airport washroom.

Craig's arrest and legal admission to signaling to an airport police officer his interest in a little washroom stall gay tryst occurred on June 11th at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Craig copped a plea, paid $500 and was given a 10-day suspended sentence. As of August 8th, he is on a year's probation.

Long a nemesis against preventing gun violence in America, Craig has been a lead supporter of all the Republican demagogic calls to "family values," not to mention being the NRA's point man on Capitol Hill and a vocal Board Member.

According to his biographical information, "Craig is married and has adopted the three children that his wife, Suzanne, had from her previous marriage - her two sons Mike and Jay, and her daughter, Shae. Through his adopted children, Craig has nine grandchildren."

[3] Wikipedia notes that "The American Conservative Union gave Craig's 2005 voting record 96 points out of 100. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave him 15."

"After he was arrested," [4] according to Roll Call, Craig, who is married, was taken to the Airport Police Operations Center to be interviewed about the lewd conduct incident, according to the police report. At one point during the interview, Craig handed the plainclothes sergeant who arrested him a business card that identified him as a U.S. Senator and said, 'What do you think about that?' the report states."

Yes Sir Senator! Nothing like gay sex in airport washroom stalls for a staunch anti-gay "family man" hypocrite!

Maybe, Senator Craig should hang out with [5] Republican Florida State Representative Bob Allen, who recently twice received the BuzzFlash.com GOP Hypocrite of the Week Award for soliciting an undercover police officer to provide the cop with fellatio for $20.00!

But the real travesty and hypocrisy in Craig's action (and you can bet the bank that this wasn't his first such encounter) is that he represents all those gay-bashing he-men gun guys, while he helps run the NRA and prevents life-saving gun control bills from being passed up on Capitol Hill.

Little did we know that he was trolling men's washrooms for a little bit of sex between flights and gun lobby fundraising dinners target shoots.

Senator Larry Craig certainly gives a new meaning to the cry of so many enthusiasts, "happiness is a warm gun."

For his part, Craig claimed, once that Roll Call -- more than a month later -- "exposed" the June guilty plea, that it was all a misunderstanding and -- oh those wily anti-attorney Republicans -- that he should have gotten a lawyer before he pleaded guilty.

Say what?

So if you are a homophobe NRA member (which we suspect is about 99% of the group), make sure that you aren't in a bathroom stall next to Larry Craig at the next "red meat" association convention. Because apparently Larry Craig is more interested in shooting off your gun than you think.

Craig is up for re-election in 2008.

Craig on Monday resigned from his post as a co-chairman of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Idaho Leadership Team. His name quickly started to disappear from Romney's website: A search for "Larry Craig" at mittromney.com this morning turned up links to five press releases where that name was supposed to appear. Clicks on each link showed that "Larry Craig" is no longer mentioned in those releases.

1982 Larry Craig denial, 1982 #2

Barney and Bill on larry Craig and gay Republicans

The Daily Davis Dirt Droppings NO.3

2007-08-27T08:47:00.000-07:00

READ HIS WORDS; EVALUATE HIS ACTIONS!

For a Man in the Middle on Iraq, Church Provides No Sanctuary

By Dana Milbank

Friday, August 24, 2007; Page A02

The sign outside Accotink Unitarian Universalist Church in Burke announces that it is a "liberal, welcoming religious community." For Rep. Tom Davis yesterday, it was more liberal than welcoming.

The Virginia Republican, a possible Senate candidate who supports the Iraq war, had bravely agreed to attend a meeting of the antiwar Americans Against Escalation in Iraq. It was a journey into the belly of the beast, and Davis got out in one piece. Almost.

He accepted -- but did not drink from -- the bottle of water with the sticker saying "Iraq War/Wrong Way." He spoke from the lectern with the poster demanding "Representative Davis . . . End This War." He politely endured shouts from the audience: "Chicken hawks! Impeach Bush! Our children are dying! You didn't answer the question!"

Then, as the moderator tried to bring the forum to an amicable close, a man in the second row stood up. "This has been a terrible meeting!" shouted David Kuebrich. "Let's not thank Representative Davis, who has been for the most part lock-stepping with the Bush administration."

Others applauded, booed Davis and joined in the protest. The congressman, buttonholed by angry activists, beat a hasty retreat, pushing aside chairs to get out of the church.

Davis needn't worry much about the antiwar crowd if he opts to keep his relatively safe seat in the House. But if Sen. John Warner (R) retires and Davis runs for the Senate, he'll need to win over Virginia voters who last year abandoned Republican George Allen for Democrat Jim Webb. And this is tricky business.

The conservative Web site Free Republic, getting wind of yesterday's meeting by what it called the antiwar "moonbats," urged its patrons to attend and "inject a little verbal calcium into [Davis's] backbone." But the Freepers, as they call themselves, didn't show up, leaving Davis (dubbed a RINO, Republican in name only, by conservatives) free to pander to the moonbats.

Davis tried to soothe the crowd with phrases such as "there aren't any easy answers." He reminded the group that he was one of 17 Republicans in the House to vote against Bush's "surge" in Iraq -- though Davis played down his many votes in support of continuing the conflict. He condemned the "dysfunctional" Iraqi government and the "backwards" political developments in an Iraq under "anarchy."

Drawing applause from the skeptical crowd, he added: "We need to have more dialogues like this around the country that are civil."

The organizers tried to keep things that way. The man who introduced Davis spoke of his deep respect for the congressman. Organizers screened and read the questions. Rand Beers, the former Bush National Security Council aide who became an adviser to John Kerry's 2004 campaign against Bush, contributed solicitous phrases such as "Congressman Davis put his finger on the problem" and "I fully agree with Congressman Davis."

But Davis appeared less than comfortable from the moment he entered the church wearing yacht-club attire -- blue blazer, striped oxford, cotton chinos, brown bucks. Perhaps noticing all the Democratic bumper stickers on the cars in the lot, or the antiwar stickers and posters in the audience, he spent much of the session shifting in his seat.

The first speaker, Catholic Sister Marie Lucey, lamented the "untold damage" of the Iraq war. Davis scratched his brow. She spoke of the "diminishment of moral and political leadership." He looked at the ceiling. She said the conflict is "contrary to international law." He put his hand in his pocket. "Bring this war to an end," she advised. His leg jiggled.

CONTINUED 1 2 Next >

SEE THE VIDEO HERE!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/08/24/VI2007082400473.html

Jul 12, 2007: Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act: WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL“Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. The American people are not happy with the conflict in Iraq; I am not pleased either. Every day, my constituents tell me their concerns with Iraq, and I can understand their desire to put this behind us. The reality is, however, that we cannot snap our fingers and make things all...”

Jun 5, 2007: Calling on The Government of China to Stop Genocide and Violence In Darfur, Sudan“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 422. This resolution aims at encouraging the People's Republic of China to use its influence as one of Sudan's chief purchasers of oil to place pressure on the Sudanese government to improve the conditions for the people in the Darfur region and allow humanitarian organizations to enter ...”

May 16, 2007: Personal Explanation: NOTICE TO ALTER ORDER OF CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF“Mr. Chairman, my amendment to extend for three years the Information Technology Exchange Program--also known as the Digital Tech Corps--has been included in this en bloc amendment, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for accepting this amendment. In 2002, I included language in the Electronic Government Act of 2002 creating the...”

May 9, 2007: Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008“Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, one of the difficulties in our procurement system today in government is that we try to reach too many competing policy goals in the way that we buy goods and services. When we use taxpayer dollars, when we take hard-earned money from our taxpayers and the government...”

May 9, 2007: Providing For Consideration of H.R. 1684, Department of Homeland Security Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2008“Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule. In the manager's amendment adopted by the rule, the majority stripped out a number of commonsense amendments, mostly offered by Republicans, which would enhance homeland security. I think it is a regrettable turn of events which could cost the majority the support of many minority Members. I guess the...”

Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591. This is not an Emergency War Supplemental; it is the Partisan Repayment Act. Indeed, this legislation is less about supplying the troops than feeding the base.

There is desperate need for a new Iraq policy, and we should be using this opportunity to have a serious discussion. It is unseemly, even embarrassing, to use pork to buy support for bad policy on a bill as important as this one. It makes us look as trifling and greedy as our enemies claim. The well-being of our men and women in uniform is in the balance, as is the future of the Middle East. If ever there was a time to win on the strength of one's ideas, this is it.

I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the progress of the war, and I believe there is value in setting benchmarks. Ours should not be an open-ended, unquestioning commitment to the Iraqis. They do need to assume more responsibility for their own affairs. It is not the job of our troops to referee partisan quarrels, nor is it our job to baby-sit the Iraqi government.

It is foolish, however, to make such milestones public. It is even more foolish to announce a date for withdrawal. Doing so gives the enemy too much information and too many options.

It is also foolish to codify deadlines. Who's to say the Iraqi government won't make a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks required of them? It would be wise to allow them flexibility, not give them a drop-dead date. We ourselves are working under a continuing resolution because we could not pass more than two appropriations bills last year. Our 5-day workweeks are often 4 days long--who are we to set a deadline in statute?

There is a pressing need to formulate a new policy for Iraq. I am disappointed the Democrats have yet to allow a serious debate on this, the most important issue facing the Congress today. Rather, we have wasted time with a non-binding resolution regarding tactics--not even strategy. Now we send the Iraqis a laundry list of errands and a pre-determined result.

Success in Iraq will require a broad based policy shift. The Iraq Study Group report includes 79 recommendations covering all facets of public policy--military, diplomatic, economic, and social. This report should form the basis of a productive discussion. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has opted for a hodge-podge of sound bites masquerading as serious legislation. They have stifled debate rather than encouraged it by refusing to allow any amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this is but the first act in the play. Our own servicemen and women do need the funding this bill would provide. I am confident once we get beyond this charade we will be able to craft responsible legislation to give it to them.

Rep. Thomas Davis [R-VA]: Mr. Speaker, in this debate, our first care should be for the safety and morale of the men and women serving in the American Armed Forces. Whatever the way forward, nothing said here should be heard by friend or foe as disrespect for the work and sacrifice of those who willingly fight our battles in a very dangerous world.

It took the United States and coalition forces less than 3 weeks to topple a brutal Iraqi regime that had held an iron grip on power for almost 30 years. Since then, they have battled a growing insurgency and rampant sectarian violence with professionalism and bravery. Of all the instruments of national power we could and should be discussing today, diplomacy, economic policy, intelligence and warfare, our military is the only one that has performed predictably, consistently, and well.

Still, knowing what we know today, after almost four years of attempted nation-building on the shifting sands of Iraq, the plan to put 21,000 more Americans in harm's way there has to be viewed with a cold-eyed skepticism born of that hard experience. Putting American troops between feuding Sunni and Shia in the middle of Baghdad, in my judgment, is a mistake. This is the appropriate place for Iraqis, not Americans.

The Iraq Study Group concluded that, "Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation." They quoted a U.S. general who said that if the Iraqi Government does not make political progress, "all the troops in the world will not provide security." I agree.

Like many Members, Republicans and Democrats, I voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq, just as I supported President Clinton's decision to take military action against the former Yugoslavia. Four years ago, we were trying to persuade Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations resolutions on disarmament and weapons inspections. Only a credible threat of force could possibly convince him that it was finally in his interest to respect the lawful demands of the international community.

Voting to support the President strengthened his hand in the diplomatic effort to get the Iraqi regime to comply peacefully. Saddam Hussein chose not to comply, and when diplomacy fails, and military action becomes necessary, politics should stop at the water's edge and every American should stand behind the Commander in Chief.

But no grant of authority is a blank check. Today, naive notions about a quick or tidy victory in Iraq have given way to far grittier options on how best to achieve our strategic goals in that nation, in the region, and in the global struggle against Islamic extremism.

We want the President to succeed, but we are disappointed our hopes and good intentions for Iraq remain unrealized. Many are frustrated by the mistakes and missed opportunities that plagued this noble but star-crossed effort. Poor planning for occupation and reconstruction of a devastated nation, and missteps by the Coalition Provisional Authority, allowed the insurgency and long-simmering factional hatreds to erupt and to take root.

At this point, it seems clear to many that only Iraqi interests, not ours, can be advanced on the streets of Baghdad. U.S. and coalition forces were tasked as protectors of Iraq's hard-won sovereignty, not referees in unchecked sectarian vendettas. From here, the surge looks much more like the status quo on steroids than a serious alternative policy to reach a realistic goal. Some way must be found to cut the Gordian knot that ties us to an Iraq strategy that says we can neither win nor leave.

Moreover, so long as American troops are the ones on the ground, taking the fire and being objects for sectarian terrorist hatred, other stakeholders who have more at stake in the region than we will refuse to step forward.

But whatever else it might accomplish, this resolution still does not do enough to illuminate a new, sustainable strategy in Iraq. It offers us few alternatives, and I am disappointed in that. The profound and complex issues central to our international position today cannot be reduced to simplistic political statements. We took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, not just strike poses on how that duty applies to the key questions before us as a Nation. In the end, these are purely political statements, when the debate we really need to have is about the most apolitical subject of all: national security in a time of global peril.

Today, the House sends a purely symbolic message to the President. It is a message that will also be heard by our troops, by the Iraqi Government, by the Iraqi people who have relied on us, and by our enemies who are hoping we will quit the fight soon. It does not say enough. We should be debating the elements of an effective policy to stem the tide of jihadism infecting growing swaths of the globe. This resolution says only what some Members are against, nothing about what we are for.

The Iraq Study Group report put forth 79 specific recommendations, many focused on the need for far greater engagement of regional powers, friends and foes in taking realistic steps to stabilize Iraq. I joined my colleague, Frank Wolf, in supporting creation of the Iraq Study Group, and I wish he and others were allowed to offer those recommendations for discussion by the House. Those are the debates and the votes I had hoped to participate in today.

The lack of substantive alternatives before us, particularly on the question of adequate funding for deployed troops, betrays the majority's empty, conflicted positions on Iraq: against the President, but for nothing. The Senate majority attempted to straddle the same contradictions recently, confirming without dissent the new commanding general for Iraq, while at the same time claiming to be against the very same mission they know he has been ordered to undertake.

On the genuine questions of security and strategy in Iraq, we cannot remain, as Winston Churchill admonished, "decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent."

Mr. Speaker, we must decide, and I have decided, to support this resolution because it is the only option that has been made in order by the majority today to engage the House in formulation of Iraq policy, but once troops are committed by the Commander in Chief and we are engaging the enemy, symbolic gestures like this must confront the more complex realities of how to support those forces in the safe and speedy completion of their mission.

Virginia " Iraq Summer" Campaign Deliver Failing Report Cards on Iraq to Reps. Tom Davis and Frank Wolf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 07/25/2007

Annandale, VA - As more than 70 percent of the American public calling for the withdrawal of nearly all U.S. troops from Iraq, the "Iraq Summer" campaign was joined Monday by Virginia educators and constituents to deliver failing 'Iraq Report Cards' (see full text below) to Rep. Tom Davis's Annandale office and Rep. Frank Wolf's Herndon office detailing each Congressman's long and abysmal record of enabling the President Bush's costly, reckless and failed policy of endless war in Iraq.

The failing grades came on the heels of Rep. Wolf's and Davis' most recent votes on July 12 against meaningful legislation to begin safely and responsibly winding down the war in Iraq. The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act [HR 2956] passed with bipartisan support without Heller's or Wolf's support and would require a responsible redeployment of U.S. troops beginning within 120 days of enactment and ending by April 1, 2008.

TWO PEAS IN A POD…REAL BUDDIES!

"The Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act was Tom Davis and Frank Wolf's golden opportunity to change course and represent the vast majority of Virginians by voting to bring the war in Iraq to a safe and responsible end," said Lisa Switzer, Field Director for the Virginia chapter of the 'Iraq Summer' Campaign. "Unfortunately, they both earned a failing grade for voting once again to enable this President to continue his costly, irresponsible and failed policy of endless war in Iraq. They each voted to keep our troops mired in the crosshairs of a bloody civil war that has no end in sight."

"Our democracy is under attack and as Americans, we simply cannot afford to stand by the sidelines and watch George Bush, backed by Tom Davis and Frank Wolf, erode our democratic principles," said Manes Pierre, former educator in Prince William County who hand delivered Rep. Davis' failing Iraq report card. "We want them to appeal to common sense and bring their grade up by voting to end this war."

On July 12, the 'Iraq Summer' Campaign and local veterans hand delivered invitations to both Rep. Wolf and Davis to attend an August 28th 'Take a Stand' town hall meeting to answer questions and concerns directly from their Virginia constituents about the Congressmen's continued support for President Bush's policy of endless war in Iraq. Rep. Tom Davis's office accepted the invitation and is currently working with the IS Campaign to schedule a time and location. Rep. Wolf, however, told Connection Newspapers that he is declining to accept the invite, "citing a desire to address the issue from a non-partisan platform."

"We are extremely grateful and encouraged that Tom Davis has agreed to attend our 'Take a Stand' town hall next month," added Switzer. "It will be a great opportunity for the Congressman to hear concerns directly from his constituents who overwhelming support bringing our brave troops home out of harm's way in Iraq. Sadly, we had to read in the newspaper that Congressman Wolf is blowing off his invitation to meet with constituents, citing partisan reasons. That's cowardice, plain and simple. If Congressman Wolf only had the same guts to face the people he represents in Congress, he would see Virginians of all walks of life represented there - of all races and creeds, of both political parties -- united in calling for an end to the war."

"Iraq Summer" has dispatched nearly 100 organizers to 15 states and 40 congressional districts to turn up the heat this summer on Republican members of Congress who have opposed setting a timeline to bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq. The intense 10-week program is modeled on the "Freedom Summer" civil rights project.

Vote Summaries

How Wolf Voted

To use force in Iraq (Vote #455, 10/2/02) WRONG

To require competitive bidding for Iraq contracts (Vote #557, 10/17/03) WRONG

To create a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in Iraq (Vote #72, 3/15/05) WRONG

To hold oversight hearings regarding possible abuses of actions and policies related to the Iraq war (Vote #562, 11/3/05) WRONG

To set timetables for withdrawal (Vote #648, 12/16/05) WRONG

To support Bush's Iraq war policy (Vote #288, 6/16/06) WRONG

To support Bush's plan for a troop surge (Vote #99, 2/16/07) WRONG

To support benchmarks and bringing our troops home (Vote #265, 4/25/07) WRONG

To withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq (Vote #330, 5/10/07) WRONG

To report progress in Iraq and benchmarks (Vote #333, 5/10/07) WRONG

To bring our troops home by April 2008 (Vote #624, 7/12/07) WRONG

Wolf voted to authorize the President to use force against Iraq. Congressman Wolf supported legislation that would allow the president to use the military "against the continuing threat" posed by the Iraqi regime.

The resolution authorized Mr. Bush to use the armed forces "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend the nation against "the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and to enforce "all relevant" United Nations Security Council resolutions on Iraq. It required him to report to Congress within 48 hours of any military action.

The resolution encouraged the president to try to work through the United Nations before acting alone thought it left him with broad latitude. The resolution passed, 296-133. [HJ RES 114, Vote #455 (D 81-126, R 215-6), 10/2/02; New York Times, 10/11/02]

Wolf voted against requiring competitive bidding for Iraq contracts. Congressman Wolf voted against legislation that would require normal competitive bidding procedures for all government contracts relating to Iraq 's oil infrastructure. [HR 3289, Vote #557 (D 200-0, R 47-179), 10/17/03]

Wolf voted against accounting for billions of taxpayer dollars spent on Iraq. Congressman Wolf voted against an amendment to provide $5 million to establish a select committee to investigate reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, including contracting procedures, protection against money laundering, and the allocation of contracts to foreign companies and small businesses.

In October 2004, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board released an audit of the Bush Administration's management of Iraqi oil proceeds and other funds in the Development Fund for Iraq. Problems found involved hundreds of millions of dollars, numerous sole source contracts and missing and nonexistent contract files. The amendment was rejected, 191-236. HR 1268, Vote #72 (D 190-10, R 0-226), 3/15/05; Committee on Government Reform Minority Staff,

Wolf voted against supporting hearings on the Bush Iraq policy. Congressman Wolf voted to kill a bid by Democrats to ask the Republican leadership and the chairmen of the committees of jurisdiction to conduct an investigation and hold oversight hearings related to possible abuses in administration actions and policies related to the Iraq war. The motion to kill hearings on Iraq passed 220-191. [Vote #562, Iraq War Investigation -- Appeal Ruling of the Chair; 11/3/05 (D 1-190, R 219-0); Washington Post, 11/6/05]

Wolf voted against setting timetables for withdrawing from Iraq. Congressman Wolf voted against a resolution declaring that setting an "artificial timetable" for withdrawing the U.S. military from Iraq would be "inconsistent with achieving victory." The resolution also called Iraq 's December 2005 election a "crucial victory" for Iraq that would not have been possible without the presence of U.S. troops. [HRS 612, Vote #648 (D 59-108, R 220-0), 12/16/05]

Wolf voted for non-binding Iraq resolution. Congressman Wolf voted for a resolution endorsing President Bush's Iraq policy while declaring that the United States will prevail in the war against terrorism. The resolution also takes a stand against setting withdrawal dates. The resolution was written entirely by the GOP and Democrats were barred from proposing an alternative.

Many Democrats felt the resolution unfair because it conjoined non-controversial measures, such as declaring support for the ongoing Global War on Terror, with controversial measures, such as joining the War in Iraq to the War on Terror. [HRS 861, Vote #288 (D 42-149, R 214-3), 6/16/06; CQ Today, 6/16/06]

Wolf voted against disapproving of Bush's plan for escalation of troops in Iraq. Congressman Wolf voted against a resolution that would express support for U.S. military personnel serving in Iraq, while disapproving of the President Bush's decision to deploy more than 20,000 additional U.S. combat troops to that country. [H Con Res 63, Vote #99 (D 229-2, R 17-180), 2/16/07]

Wolf voted against redeployment of troops and benchmarks. Congressman Wolf voted against the adoption of the conference report on the bill that provided $124.2 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency funding, it also set a goal for redeployment of troops in Iraq by the end of March 2008. If the president can not verify that the Iraq government is meeting benchmarks then the troops would redeploy by the end of 2007. The legislation also provides $95.9 billion for military operations, $6.9 for hurricane recovery and $3.5 billion for crop programs. [HR 1591, Vote #265, 4/25/07]

Wolf voted against a bill that required the withdrawal U.S. troops. Congressman Wolf voted against a bill that required the withdrawal of U.S. troops and contractors in Iraq with funds provided by the Defense Department within 90 days of the bill's enactment. The withdrawal would have to be completed within 180 days. The bill would prohibit any funds made available to the Defense Department from being used to increase the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq in excess of the number serving there as of Jan. 1, 2007, unless the increase has been specifically authorized in advance by Congress. [HR 2237, Vote #330, 5/10/07]

Wolf voted against the President reporting progress in Iraq and meeting benchmarks. Congressman Wolf voted against a bill that would provide $42.8 billion in fiscal 2007 emergency spending for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and require another congressional vote in late July to release the remaining $52.8 billion for the Pentagon. It would withhold funds until the president reports by July 13 on progress the Iraqi government has made toward meeting specified benchmarks and goals set by the bill and Congress has adopted a joint resolution releasing the "fenced off" funds.

The measure would provide $6.8 billion for hurricane recovery and relief, $3.3 billion for military healthcare costs and $2.25 billion for homeland security anti-terrorism programs. It also would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over two years and provide $4.8 billion in small-business tax incentives. [HR 2206, Vote #333, 5/10/07]

Wolf voted against a bill to bring our troops home by April 2008. Congressman Wolf voted against bringing our troops home from Iraq to begin within 120 days of the bill's enactment. It would be completed by April 2008, with the exception of "limited presence." It also required the president to report to Congress a U.S. strategy for Iraq. This would include protection for the remaining forces, specific missions and cost. [HR 2956, Vote #624, 7/12/07]

Vote Summaries How Davis Voted